-
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.
May EGM review scores
- Thread starter Gigglepoo
- Start date
Kobun Heat
Member
I'd have scored Metroid lower. In fact, I think my review might be up in the next hour or so on Wired. Game's an utter disappointment all around. Much like Katamari, except Hunters has the benefit of at least being technically impressive, whereas Katamari is a failure in both design and implementation.
Also, I am totally head over heels for Too Human's control scheme.
Also, I am totally head over heels for Too Human's control scheme.
rod furlong
Member
neojubei said:
LOLs across America, learn2trollgamefaqs, who let the junior members in, etc., etc.
7 = good. All you people who think Syphon Filter is a 9 will wonder what the hell you were on a couple weeks from now. It's a good game, not christ on a disk.
That SC review is not really consistent.
You go from "UNCONTROLLABLE" to 7.0 (which you guys have said is "good")
To me, that is a useless review. One reviewer thinks it is BASICALLY UNCONTROLLABLE and two others think it is a GOOD title. AHHHHHHH! How can you disagree over something that is so cut and dry?
You go from "UNCONTROLLABLE" to 7.0 (which you guys have said is "good")
To me, that is a useless review. One reviewer thinks it is BASICALLY UNCONTROLLABLE and two others think it is a GOOD title. AHHHHHHH! How can you disagree over something that is so cut and dry?
Someone tell me why the reviewers opinions alone make the magazine so bad. If you know you disagree, why do you care? I think EGM is well written and pretty entertaining. Canceling your subscription over review scores? I guess the actual quality of the content is meaningless?
I give this thread a 7.5
I give this thread a 7.5
norinrad21
Banned
SantaCruZer said:
oh look its ghandi:lol :lol :lol
Y2Kevbug11 said:
Bullshit. Whether a game controls well or not is so far from "cut and dry," especially on the PSP and DS, thanks to the relatively archaic controller hardware on each.
Case in Point: Metroid Prime Hunters. I've seen arguments that the game controls quite well once you get used to it. However, I played the shit out of it for a review and could NOT get a handle on the controls at all. So how is that cut and dry? Does that mean that I should tell you, my reader, that the control is good because I've seem some people claim it to be so, even though I think it's fucking horrendous?
I can completely see how Splinter Cell on PSP would suffer the same issues, thanks to the single analog stick. I haven't played the game, but I know that in almost any 3D action title on that system, camera control is a problem. So Shoe -- a huge fan of the series -- simply can't come to grips with that sort of thing, while the other reviewers were either willing to accept it or really weren't bothered by it. Doesn't make any of them wrong.
I love how people bitch about review scores and act like there's some scientific method or empirical way to measure exactly what a game deserves. Get over yourselves.
SolidSnakex
Member
Lakitu said:So they're going to have Resident Evil 5, MGS 4 previews next issue? Must prove that both will be pretty big at E3
Did they say they'd have any new info? I don't see Kojima letting anything really new out (screens especially) about MGS4 before E3.
worldrunover
Member
I have a EGM-subscriber related question:
I've been getting EGM for like 10 years, but the last four or five month, I get my issue maybe 2 weeks after everyone else (including store shelves). I didn't get my April issue until March 16th! What gives? Is it random or what?
I've been getting EGM for like 10 years, but the last four or five month, I get my issue maybe 2 weeks after everyone else (including store shelves). I didn't get my April issue until March 16th! What gives? Is it random or what?
To be fair to those people who are ragging on the scores before reading the review content, with EGM, how often does it matter? Their average review size is, what, 16-17 words right now? And half of that is taken up by painful attempts at humor? They've brought it on themselves, and they've continually overemphasized their number scores.
As for Syphon Filter, Daxter and Metroid, I've always been under the impression that the best review, as they are subjective by nature, is one that best attempts to compare said title to what is currently available on the market as a barometer of expectation. If EGM can point me towards better (or hell, even comparable) 3D shooters, 3D platformers or 3D FPS' on a handheld I'd love to hear it. Syphon Filter and Daxter are 9.0+, gold titles at the very minimum IMO.
Dyack and SK seriously need to take a page from Mr. Molyneux. 'Might change the world' is just laughable, and he needs to settle down before he overhypes the game. Trashtalking a critical darling such as 'God of War' is just asking to have that backfire in your face as well. I'd hate to see this game suffer because of all this, as it sounds like they may be integrating some really interesting thematics within the game. Using the right analog stick for attacks is worrisome though; I'm not a fan of that setup at all.
As for Syphon Filter, Daxter and Metroid, I've always been under the impression that the best review, as they are subjective by nature, is one that best attempts to compare said title to what is currently available on the market as a barometer of expectation. If EGM can point me towards better (or hell, even comparable) 3D shooters, 3D platformers or 3D FPS' on a handheld I'd love to hear it. Syphon Filter and Daxter are 9.0+, gold titles at the very minimum IMO.
Dyack and SK seriously need to take a page from Mr. Molyneux. 'Might change the world' is just laughable, and he needs to settle down before he overhypes the game. Trashtalking a critical darling such as 'God of War' is just asking to have that backfire in your face as well. I'd hate to see this game suffer because of all this, as it sounds like they may be integrating some really interesting thematics within the game. Using the right analog stick for attacks is worrisome though; I'm not a fan of that setup at all.
SolidSnakex
Member
Lakitu said:
Should be out around this time next month. I just can't really see them giving any mag an early look at what the real engine of the game looks like before E3 hits.
SolidSnakex said:
This month's issue had "Dead Rising and Lost Planet previews!" on the cover. Inside, a single old screenshot of both titles, and a paragraph of description that might as well have been lifted off the official game websites.
I'm not expecting much.
Yes, it sounds almost exactly like it with regard to the use of the analog sticks. I'm not convinced though that using the analog sticks this way is a bad thing. Rise to Honor had a number of issues that had to do with general game tuning that seemed to have more to do with an average dev team trying to take on an overambitious design goal, rather than being the result of a control scheme that innately could not handle the tasks put to it.slade said:
The Bookerman
Member
Here what I think of Too Human...
it'll suck.
Simply cause Denis Dyack has great ideas that fall flat in execution.
it'll suck.
Simply cause Denis Dyack has great ideas that fall flat in execution.
Heian-kyo said:
That is horrible logic. That would mean every time a new genre is released on a platform it would get a 10. When Goldeneye: Rogue Agent was released on the NDS the closest competition was the Metroid Prime Hunters demo. Should G:RA receieved all 10s because there wasn't a better FPS on a handheld?
slade
Member
kaching said:
I'm thinking that combat in this sense may become too automatic which was one of the problems I had with Rise to Honor. Think of something like Star Fox Adventures, where there's the one prime button that you use for attacks but if you tilt the left analogue stick in any direction, it performs a different combo. Obviously, Too Human is a little bit beyond that but the ergonomics don't seem all that much different to me, ie, hold right on the right analogue stick to perform a kick and simultaneously press left on the left analogue stick to perform a kick combo. The game is basically playing itself and you're along for the ride.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
Hunters is technically impressive relative to other DS games, and Katamari looks pretty comparable to the PS2 version (it has some problems, but it also has better image quality). Why knock points off something that does what it's set to do?Kobun Heat said:
Amir0x said:
How can you give three scores if you said that the three score system is there so people can read why each person did or didn't like it? Are you a schizophrenic now? :lol
Game Informer is a nice magazine, a shame they put the dumbest jokes on every single screenshot on their magazine. I read one magazine of Edge and it came off as overly pretenious.
They really need a "Thumbs Up/Down" system that makes the viewer to read the articles.
this is not a very good idea. As has been pointed out, launch games would always be rated high because nothing else was available. Future games would have to be rated against the higly rated launch games. You could make a case that as long as there isn't another game available that it should be rated against a last gen game instead, but then you are really setting the standard against last gen anyway.Heian-kyo said:
to me reviews are all bullshit. The best reviews in the day were (I believe) next-generation.com (or whatever spun off of it for a short time). Bomb, Miss, Hit, Direct Hit. a simple 4 scale. seriously, do we really need a twenty scale or a freakgin one hundred scale (which is effectively what we have now on all sites) to tell us if a game is good or not? and then you hit the "mythical" 10, which ergo means the best of the best but which can really enver exist.
what does it mean for a game to be .5 of a point better than another one? just stupid really. bring back the 4 scale from the old next-gen. either a game is good or bad, and a few of the games will be unbelievably great or horrible.
Odrion said:
It was a joke, dude
Odrion said:
I've always supported this, or a simple four star system (possibly without half-stars, even). But I certainly don't lambast alternative methods of scoring. Especially not simply because the reviewer has a different opinion than my own
nod. four stars, no half points.Amir0x said:I've always supported this, or a simple four star system (possibly without half-stars, even). But I certainly don't lambast alternative methods of scoring. Especially not simply because the reviewer has a different opinion than my own
borghe said:
The site you're referring to was Daily Radar. And, almost universally, everyone hated that review score scheme.
I worked for Daily Radar, and was initially hostile toward the grading policy. But it grew on me because it's the one that's most natural-sounding and logical. When you discuss a game with a friend, you don't say, "It was a 6.8 out of 10!" Nor do you claim it was a 75 or a B-plus with a fun factor of 8.3. You simply say the game was good, or it was great, or it sucked, and you tell why.
I liked the fact that a lot of games fell into the "hit" category, and you needed to read the review to find out exactly what its merits were. The precision and accuracy came from the review text, not from some numerical score that's either tacked on as an afterthought or issued before the review is even written.
Red Blaster
Member
Amir0x said:It was a joke, dude
I've always supported this, or a simple four star system (possibly without half-stars, even). But I certainly don't lambast alternative methods of scoring. Especially not simply because the reviewer has a different opinion than my own
Wont work because of sites like Gamerankings and Metacritic. Suikoden V might be a decent game on the EGM scale, but on the Gamerankings and Metacritic scale it's a D game.
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
.Amir0x said:
Seriously? Do positive reviews really cause a signifigant increase in sales? Further, do a couple of websites have that large effect on the industry?skip said:
Amir0x said:
http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/sitedetails.asp?siteid=706
EGM's average score for a game is only 3.5% lower than the average Gamerankings score though, so I don't tink that's entirely true.
skip said:
That is a shame. There should never be universal standards like that, or even a push toward something like it. 'Cause then people feel pressure to 'fall in line' with the general consensus, imo.
joshschw said:
It is true though, when you read their scores in the magazine itself...
"10-7" = Good, 6.5-5 = "Fair", 4.5-0 = "Bad"
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
Maybe it isn't entirely true, but we need to keep in mind that EGM and other mags don't review every single game, yet their reviews are based off the market as a whole. I'm willing to bet that if every Barbie vs. Peter Pan: Horsing Racing in Never Neverland VI was reviewed, the games getting 7s would start looking a lot better than average, and the average score EGM game would be closer to 5.0 than 6.8.joshschw said:
jetpacks was yes
Member
Odrion said:
I agree, I think the whole 7.3, 9.7 stuff is ridiculous. Even a simple 1-10 scale isn't very good, IMO. I would love for game reviews to take the Ebert "thumbs up/down" system. People should be looking at the review, not the score.
skip said:
Indeed. But it's fairly ridiculous that those sites take a scientific approach to tracking something so subjective. They try to make a universal scheme out of disparate ranking systems and produce a number that's an aggregate of, well, absolutely nothing.
What does a 7 out of 10 mean, exactly? Seventy percent? What about in terms of a representative scale, where an adjective is attached to a number? Is "good" to be universally assigned a value of 70? What about publications that have only five separate grades? A three out of five indicates a game is wholly mediocre (in the middle of the scale), but this translates to a 60 percent and not the 50 percent representing half in a 10-point scale.
I haven't put two minutes' thought into it and it's clear to me those sites are junk. I'd hope anyone whose job it is to take stock of review scores would use those sites as reference only, and not for any actual analysis.
DAILY RADAR!! thank you, that's what I was trying to remember.MC Safety said:
funny that you say universally almost everyone hated it.. everyone I knew (IRL that is) loved it. not only was it simple, but their reviews were RARELY schizophrenic because of the weighted 20/100 point scales we have now. "the controls are weird, the graphics have problems, it ends too short, 7.9" so if you saw something was a hit that you previously weren't interested in, it got you to read the review to see why they liked it. if you saw something was a miss that you were interested in, you read the review to see why they didn't like it. not like now where a 7.9 could be good or bad depending on the context of the review.
I would love to see a 4 star review system.. and for those pointing out thumbs up/down, that is essentially a three star system because it is two reviewers. ebert in his Sun Times(?) column uses 4 stars. but ebert and roper essentially gives you 1 (two down), 2 (one up one down), and 3 (two up).