Topic: EDITORIALS: On Ratings

[IceCold]

Quote
Originally posted by: vudu
Because money's not an absolute value.  If I have more money than you do I may be willing to part with more money for a game I enjoy just as much as you.  We're not communists.

Can I get a Hell Yeah?

No cross-posting.

Also, price is determined through supply and demand, not through critical merit. Popular games like Madden inherently would have a higher price than, say, Okami, even though they may not be as good.

[Plugabugz]

For that review that i made for super paper mario, i described the game with merely one word.

While one word may not be enough giddy does broadly summarise what the game entails.

[KDR_11k]

A N/A rating leads to the question "why was this not checked". I've seen plenty of reviews that mentioned score modifiers you should apply if you like X or didn't play Y. Your five boxes still wouldn't solve that, there'd still not be a field for "playing RPGs for story" or "owns the previous game". Furthermore, some scores will be inaccurate because they lack consideration but you cannot tell which ones. I want meaningful divisions drawn where they make sense for the individual game, not just more arbitrary numbers. If there's a reason to distinguish between casual and hardcore play, sure, draw the line there.

I don't think adding four scores just to make clear that the reviewer is a hardcore gamer makes sense.

Five scores for components plus a final score still give you only one final score, the component scores are pretty useless and they have specific meanings, there's no arguing whether polygons count as graphics or sound but there is arguing where the line between a hardcore and a casual gamer is and even then the component scores seem kinda arbitrary to me. Noone is going to look at the table of component ratings to find out whether they like the game, there's a big score below it that states "final score".

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
A N/A rating leads to the question "why was this not checked".

Because it doesn't apply to the game. If the game is played on a DS and has no multiplayer component, then the "party" aspect of it doesn't exist and it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why the score was omitted. N/A means "not applicable". If the score doesn't apply then it doesn't apply.

Quote
I've seen plenty of reviews that mentioned score modifiers you should apply if you like X or didn't play Y. Your five boxes still wouldn't solve that, there'd still not be a field for "playing RPGs for story" or "owns the previous game".

Both of those fall under the "Fan" score, where the reviewer can state that fans of the franchise or fans of the RPG genre will enjoy the game, especially if they play RPGs for the story.

Quote
Furthermore, some scores will be inaccurate because they lack consideration but you cannot tell which ones.

I'm aware, but having some scores be inaccurate is better than having one score which is inaccurate. I never said the system is perfect, only that it's infinitely better than what we have now where one reviewer throws down one score based on their own tastes in gaming which are not made clear to the reader.

Quote
I want meaningful divisions drawn where they make sense for the individual game, not just more arbitrary numbers. If there's a reason to distinguish between casual and hardcore play, sure, draw the line there.

And why isn't there a reason?

It was already said in this thread that games are entertainment as much as they are art, so it's safe to assume that people will have different tastes in games and reviewers should at least ATTEMPT to acknowledge this fact. Sometimes I want a game which is going to make my eyes hurt from the intensity. Other times, I just want a game I can sit down and play without needing to have keen reflexes. Sometimes I want a game my mother would enjoy.

These are all quantifiable variables, and while no two reviewers will quantify them the same way, you can at least guarantee that the attempt to define the idea puts the reviewer closer to their reader. If I, as a reviewer, say, "What would hardcore gamers think of this game? Are there difficult challenges which unlock extra content? Would they feel the desire to keep going until they got the most out of this game and is there a 'most' to get?" then god knows I'm doing a better job than if I thought, "This game is too f*cking hard. F*ck this game." and gave it a 3/10.

The fact is, what one gamer may consider a strike against the game will be considered by another as a reason to buy it. The single score everyone looks at is too black and white for the experience being evaluated.

[KDR_11k]

Both of those fall under the "Fan" score, where the reviewer can state that fans of the franchise or fans of the RPG genre will enjoy the game, especially if they play RPGs for the story.

But you still need to mention a fan of WHAT. What if there's more than one kind of fan involved? What if it's fans of strategy vs fans of story, which one gets the fan rating and which one goes into the other category?

And why isn't there a reason?

Because not every game has a different value to different people?

It was already said in this thread that games are entertainment as much as they are art, so it's safe to assume that people will have different tastes in games and reviewers should at least ATTEMPT to acknowledge this fact. Sometimes I want a game which is going to make my eyes hurt from the intensity. Other times, I just want a game I can sit down and play without needing to have keen reflexes. Sometimes I want a game my mother would enjoy.

But are these divisions meaningful? What if I want to know how e.g. a 3d Zelda stacks up for someone who's used to 2d Zeldas? The answer is badly Do we need a "fan of this series" vs "fan of series X" score?

Use meaningful divisions, if the game warrants five scores for five groups then it warrants five scores for five groups but what you're doing is force something non-uniform into a form. Don't force people to interpret which division is closest to the one they want.

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k  But you still need to mention a fan of WHAT. What if there's more than one kind of fan involved? What if it's fans of strategy vs fans of story, which one gets the fan rating and which one goes into the other category?

Then the reviewer can elaborate on that fact in the paragraph under the "Fan" section. Mario Baseball, for example, could possibly appeal to fans of both baseball and Mario and I hardly think it's beyond the scope of human capability to address both in one paragraph.

I thought this discussion was about improving reviews for the sake of the readers, not suggesting that reviewers are a tired, beleaguered people who should feel free to fart whatever they want onto a page and call it a review.

Quote
Because not every game has a different value to different people?

You've stated a complete and total impossibility here. Every game will be viewed differently by different people and the deviations in gaming styles is the best place to define these lines since we are talking about reviewing games here.

Quote
But are these divisions meaningful? What if I want to know how e.g. a 3d Zelda stacks up for someone who's used to 2d Zeldas? The answer is badly Do we need a "fan of this series" vs "fan of series X" score?

Ocarina of Time:
Fan: 9.0
The game brings the world of Zelda to life in brilliant 3D for the first time ever. It should be noted that fans who cling to the 2D Zelda style may take some issue with the execution of Link's newest adventure but if the shift doesn't bother you, you'll love every minute of the game.

There, now was that so hard?

Quote
Use meaningful divisions, if the game warrants five scores for five groups then it warrants five scores for five groups but what you're doing is force something non-uniform into a form. Don't force people to interpret which division is closest to the one they want.

Who says people have to "force" themselves into a division?

I find all five scores are useful. For example, if a game gets...

Normal: 7.0
Hardcore: 5.0
Party: 9.5
Non: 9.0
Fan: 9.0

I can learn that a game has little difficulty, limited replay value alone, but kicks ass at parties where there will be people unfamiliar with games and fans of the series will love it.

Oh, by the way: that review was for Wario Ware: Smooth Moves and considering that I've used the game on Wii nights at a local bar, that review is spot-on. It also makes a great drinking game.

I consider myself all 5 scores, personally. I love good fun games, but I love challenge, and I love group gaming, and I love introducing games to non-gamers and I usually always come back for a good sequel.

The system is designed to show gamers where the appeal of a game may lie and WW is an excellent example because it lacks in the single player but has awesome multiplayer.

[KDR_11k]

Fan: 9.0
The game brings the world of Zelda to life in brilliant 3D for the first time ever. It should be noted that fans who cling to the 2D Zelda style may take some issue with the execution of Link's newest adventure but if the shift doesn't bother you, you'll love every minute of the game.

There, now was that so hard?

So what's the score for 2d players?

[wandering]

Quote
If I, as a reviewer, say, "What would hardcore gamers think of this game? Are there difficult challenges which unlock extra content? Would they feel the desire to keep going until they got the most out of this game and is there a 'most' to get?" then god knows I'm doing a better job than if I thought, "This game is too f*cking hard. F*ck this game." and gave it a 3/10.

You can't speak for other people. You might think hardcore gamers will love Xtreme Gears Bloodfest 9000, and hate Shadows and Whispers: A Tale of Lost Love, but you can't know. You can say that you think Xtreme Gears is too hard, but you can't say that hardcore gamers will think it's legitimately challenging. Maybe they'll think it's really cheap. You can say you think Shadows and Whispers is beautiful, but you can't say that hardcore gamers will think it's boring. Maybe they'll love it just as much as you do.  

[NWR_insanolord]

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Fan: 9.0
The game brings the world of Zelda to life in brilliant 3D for the first time ever. It should be noted that fans who cling to the 2D Zelda style may take some issue with the execution of Link's newest adventure but if the shift doesn't bother you, you'll love every minute of the game.

There, now was that so hard?

So what's the score for 2d players?

I think the 9 is for 2D players, the score for the people who like 3D is 14.

[Nick DiMola]

Quote
Originally posted by: wandering

Quote
If I, as a reviewer, say, "What would hardcore gamers think of this game? Are there difficult challenges which unlock extra content? Would they feel the desire to keep going until they got the most out of this game and is there a 'most' to get?" then god knows I'm doing a better job than if I thought, "This game is too f*cking hard. F*ck this game." and gave it a 3/10.

You can't speak for other people. You might think hardcore gamers will love Xtreme Gears Bloodfest 9000, and hate Shadows and Whispers: A Tale of Lost Love, but you can't know. You can say that you think Xtreme Gears is too hard, but you can't say that hardcore gamers will think it's legitimately challenging. Maybe they'll think it's really cheap. You can say you think Shadows and Whispers is beautiful, but you can't say that hardcore gamers will think it's boring. Maybe they'll love it just as much as you do.

This is a true point, but regardless of how good the review is, sometimes you are going to get burned. At least with this scale it really differentiates based on people's tastes and comes much closer to accurately portraying the game.

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
So what's the score for 2d players?

9.0, minus however much preferring 2D Zeldas means to them, which is entirely feasible for the reader to decide.

You seem to think that because my system includes deviations that it must therefore include EVERY deviation possible. Covering the 5 basic gamer types is enough.

Like I said, my system may not be perfect, but this would be infinitely better than all of the OoT reviews which gave the game perfect 10s across the board and offered absolutely no caution regarding 2D or 3D preferences. If players were going to be burned on mine, they'd be roasted to ashes by the standard reviews.

Quote
You can't speak for other people.

Agreed, but this is already what every review does every time it's written. By saying "The controls are hard to manage", they're automatically writing off the fact that other people may not have a hard time with them. When they say, "The game is a dream come true", they once again ignore the fact that not every other individual will feel that way.

By breaking it down into 5 scores, the system at least ATTEMPTS to have the reviewer try on the shoes of others and see it from a different perspective. That alone makes it a better alternative to taking the word of a reviewer at face value when they say a game is good or bad.  

[KDR_11k]

9.0, minus however much preferring 2D Zeldas means to them, which is entirely feasible for the reader to decide.

When OOT came out there was no way to know how much it means to you .

I'm arguing that you're introducing scores without looking at the game. As I said, I often see reviews that mention conditions under which you might like the game more/less than normal. These conditions would remain, excpet maybe they'd have to also mention which of the five scores are affected.

If you really want those scores at least point out which ones are test results and which ones are guesses. When someone says the game is good for casuals but bad for hardcores you don't know per se which group the reviewer belongs to and which score is just extrapolated.

[Smash_Brother]

That would be ideal, and I agree that that exposes one key flaw in the system which is that one reviewer cannot possibly speak for all 5 scores with 100 % accuracy since some scores sit opposite each other.

I do appreciate it when a reviewer notes that he/she isn't the biggest fan of the genre as it further provides the reader with an idea of what to expect.