Anybody who hangs out on GameTrailers or visits Metacritic.com every once in a while knows this – some websites give out perfect scores in reviews more frequently than Gordon Ramsey makes people cry on national television. But why does this happen? Are the reviewers playing their first game ever, ejaculating over the magical fact that a man on the televisional doo-hickey is talkin’ to them? I believe that it’s detrimental to the progress of games development and their individual achievements to give them a perfect score. Why?
As I see it, a perfect score means that the game is perfect. There is nothing remotely wrong about the game, it’s the best game ever made and it even dispenses strips of bacon if you stroke it! Thinking like this makes me sad. I mean, yes, reviews are based upon subjective opinions and that’s the way it should be – but come on… a perfect score? Couldn’t the game be improved even the slightest? Just a little bit? Wouldn’t giving a lower score to games make developers try harder?
What I’m trying to say is that no game ever should be given a perfect 100%/10/5/A+ unless it automatically orders AND pays for prostitutes that will come to your house and rub each other up with oil in front of you as you play your favourite game. No touching, though. We’re not going to have that much fun.
And giving a game a perfect score will not do anything else than feed the fanboys. It takes everything out of context when people try to compare them to other games.
“Will Modern Warfare 2 compare to Uncharted 2???”
What? Comparing a FPS to a third person adventure-platforming game? That’s stupid, but it raises an interesting question… Why do people not get the fact that a game’s score is decided on how it fares against games in its own genre, how it executes and whether it’s original or not. It’s like comparing the story of Halo 3 to MGS4. Yes, Halo 3 got a higher score when it comes to story but couldn’t that be because the story in MGS4 didn’t really measure up to the previous installments? It’s still good, damn it, but I believe that MGS3 was better. And so did GameTrailers, apparently.
Loading ...
November 14, 2009
#1
They need to take a look at PS1-N64 metacritics. Now that’s too nice. A lot of games in that era got 96-99 easily.
November 15, 2009
#2
Yes they are. There’s way too many 9+ games when there shouldn’t be as many. I think it just the thought that an less than an 9= fail. That’s NOT true. A game rated 7 is a pretty good game, an 8 is a very good game with some minor mistakes, a 9 is an amazing almost perfect game and a 10 is a game above all games. This notion that a game HAS to get at least a 9 to be “good” is just dumb.
November 15, 2009
#3
I don’t think there has been a single game released this year that deserves better than a 9 by a real 1-10 ranking system…and that’s being generous. This whole generation has maybe 1-2 9’s.
I do think there are plenty of 8’s though.
November 15, 2009
#4
It depends on what kind of reviewers we want to talk about. If we want to talk about Corporate reviews like IGN, Gamespot etc who get bribes and swag bags for big games, then yes…they are “too nice”.
If we want to talk about honest reviewers that actually play the game and know what the hell they are talking about and spent money on the game so the sense of “value” is there – then no, they are usually correct.
http://n4g.com/NewsCom-424354.aspx
I liked that review so much becuase it was honest and most important of all it came from a FANS perspective who actually know what the hell he was talking about. It’s funny how IGN, Gamespot, 1up, and all of the bigger corporate outlets failed to mention how utterly retarded Forza 3’s multiplayer mode is in comparison to Forza 2’s.
I feel all the corporate outlets are “too nice” for big games because they don’t want to upset fanboys and most importantly, publishers/developers. IGN gave ODST…a 9? Are you freakin kidding me? I own that game, loved it, had a great time but I would never give it even an 8. IGN was just “too nice” becuase its a Halo game.
Compared to someone who spent hard earned money ($60) on ODST – their opinion is very different.
So we got real reviewers who are usually correct on reviews becuase they have no one to upset nor do they have anything to gain vs Corporate reviewers who get bribed, like to hand out good scores for just being a (insert title) game here, and not to upset fanboys and publishers but when it’s a game no one cares about (like a dragonball game) they just rip it to shreds.
November 15, 2009
#5
GTA4 is at 98 and its not even the best GTA in the serie.
November 14, 2009
#6
Most reviewers are scared….the label of fanboy is being thrown around like bras in a whorehouse so much that..its safer to
1.Have a disclaimer stating that you aren’t a fanboy
2.Point out that you have all consoles ever created, so you cant be biased.
3. change(reviews articles…not scores) and answer to any fans that disagree to something your mis-spelled, mis-quoted, ect ect right in your forum.
4. give all the “supposed good games” 90 and above, even if its a 85 or below, or be cast into fanboy damnation hell, and have your site boycotted.
November 14, 2009
#7
Halo 3 has a better story than MGS4? Only if you’re 12 or have a brain of one.
No other game this gen have made me feel happy to be a gamer today, and at the same time sad that it has to end, than the Epic Story that is called MGS4.
The only games that could possibly rival the story of Metal Gear games are:
1. Suikoden 1
2. Suikoden 2
3. Xenogears
4. Final Fantasy Tactics
and those are still subject for debate.
November 15, 2009
#8
you’ve never played any PC games have you? :/
November 15, 2009
#9
Yeah. No offense reintype, but there are some pretty awesome stories to be had on the PC as well.
The Longest Journey and it’s sequel, Dreamfall; Grim Fandango; Planescape Torment – even more recent games like Half Life 2 and Portal (though they’re also on consoles).
One game whose story is currently on my mind is Star Wars: Republic Commando. On the outset, it didn’t seem to have a very deep story, but when you actually got through an entire campaign (that is, finishing up every single mission on one single planet or ship), you realized how complex and weaving the circumstances became. You’re investigating why a Republic capital ship has suddenly resurfaced – and an hour later, when you’re rigging the ship’s turbo lasers to stop the Separatists from scuttling the hull while desperately fending off Droids, you’ll find it hard to believe you got there.
Many other points to consider, but as for revisiting more current classics, Republic Commando is a great option.
Edit: If you can get DOSBox, you HAVE to experience “I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream”. Effing brilliant exemplar of story telling.
November 15, 2009
#10
Console gaming > PC
Xenogears > Everything
edit: Dreamfall looks cool, after I beat Uncharted 2 maybe I’ll try that one. The others seem too complicated, with so many menus and things on screen, that’s why PC gaming sucks.
November 15, 2009
#11
he makes no mention of Half Life or Half Life 2. and what about Deus Ex?
and by the way, while i did very much enjoy MGS4, i would never consider it to be an “epic story.” it’s an okay story that is told repetitively throughout the game. i don’t know how many times you get a full, detailed explanation about the nano machines. and sometimes it just drags on (like the 40 minute ending). and even if the story were close to as good as you praise it to be, it’s told entirely through cut scenes. that’s not really a game. you could have the exact same experience (story wise) if you screen capped someone playing it, and edited out all the 5 minute point A to point B sections.
before the fanboys get in an uproar, let me just repeat that i very much enjoyed MGS4, just don’t think it’s as amazing as some ppl do.
November 14, 2009
#12
I just farted
November 14, 2009
#13
You Sir, are and idiot! ^^
November 14, 2009
#14
I have a serious gas problem
November 14, 2009
#15
A 10/10 doesn’t necessarily mean “perfect”. At ign, they say a 10 means “masterful” and many other sites employ similar metrics. In fact, having a scale that goes from utterly worthless to everyone (0) to perfect (10, 100, or whatever) doesn’t make any sense for an artistic medium at all. Video games are not diamonds, they can’t be measured mathematically on a scale. A 10/10 should simply mean that, in the subjective opinion of one specific reviewer, the game offered as much enjoyment as he or she would ever hope to get out of a video game.
November 14, 2009
#16
Well said, my good man. Kudos to you.
November 15, 2009
#17
they’re only too easy on 360 games so they dont upset the average 12 year old age group for the 360.
November 15, 2009
#18
WHAT DO YOU MEAN??? WAHHHHHHHH WAHHHHHHHHHHH
November 15, 2009
#19
Game developers got clever, not only are they developing games but relationships with popular reviewers and review sites. They got smart with the PR aspect essentially. This friendly relationship helps ensure over inflated review scores and the cause for a lot of head scratching when reading most of them.
November 15, 2009
#20
No cod mw2 should have got 10,s across the board.
November 15, 2009
#21
(deep breath)
Oh my god, it’s Bobby Kotick!
Bobby! Why won’t the nightmares stop, Bobby?? ;__;
November 15, 2009
#22
MW2’s story flows so poorly, it connects, but in the end. A story should onfold throught, not at the end. However the gameplay is great, each level brings something different so it’s like you never play the same way too much. Almost U2 greatness in single player, def a better online than everything I’ve played this year, and Killzone 2 held that spot til now.
MW2 is a def 9+ game. Overhyped YES, Worth it YES
November 15, 2009
#23
What?
MW2 had a great story!
November 15, 2009
#24
Publishers pay for the sites/magazines advertisements, the more they pay the more the magazine/website becomes dependent on them. They can and will stop the ads at anytime if the site gives their game a bad score. Not to mention pull all early access to the publisher’s games. This is the sad truth why we see everyone give out inflated scores. They’re all corrupt, however they try to give us some idea of the game, but the score certainly is almost never accurate. The most popular games will always score better because early access to the next game is a huge story.
November 15, 2009
#25
Yes thats true i make waaaaay more money off consoles.
Edit:(deep breath)
Oh my god, it’s Bobby Kotick!
Bobby! Why won’t the nightmares stop, Bobby?? ;__;
Well if you go to your local videogame store and buy dj hero and MW2 together then the nightmares should dissappear.
November 15, 2009
#26
But but, I did! And then you left me! Without a word! ;__;
Without…even…one…WORD.. .. (breaks down)
November 15, 2009
#27
Whenever watching an X-Play review, I predict the score before it comes, and get it right every time. No lie.
If it’s a popular game that they continuously talk nicely about, 5/5
If it’s a popular game that they happen to have just one or two gripes with, it’s 4/5
For new games, I listen to the bad points and their attitude towards the game, and base it off of that. I’ve only been wrong twice. No.. freakin’…. lie. Unbearably predictable.
November 15, 2009
#28
The 5star system isn’t really in the factor cause it’s:
1. Very Bad
2. Poor
3. Ok
4. Good
5. Great
it’s a simple system. The #/10, ##/100, and F to A+ is where the corruption lies.
November 15, 2009
#29
I know. I’m not hating the system, because I like it. It’s just everything from the way they talk about it to the popularity of that franchise. Sometimes, they’ll just give obvious hints that can give you the score indirectly just to try to be funny.
November 15, 2009
#30
Honestly do they know what 10/10 means!
It means perfect. As its a equals 1.
God reviewers have lost it, giving 9s out like candy, IGN gave 3 9.5s in like a month. countless 9s this year.
Remember the times when games scored over a 9 was ground breaking.
Now 10s dont even matter, how sad.
November 15, 2009
#31
Yeah, the review system is broken. If your game has a large fanbase, and is really popular, it will get a 9.5 at the lowest; Franchises that have strayed far from their roots, but aren’t broken in design get a 4.5 or lower, and if a franchise is overhyped enough, it will even cause it to get a perfect score, regardless of any flaws that appear in the game’s design.
November 15, 2009
#32
No, reviewers are not too nice, they simply have “Favourite” games that they will award a near – perfect score too without even playing it first and then they’ll overlook and poorly rate any game that doesn’t fit into their favourite genre.
One of the better games of this year was “Wanted: Weapons Of Fate”. Anyone who’s ACTUALLY played it knows it’s far better than Call Of Duty yet it got a terrible Metascore. I’d say that most of the people who reviewed it probably just looked at the front cover, realised it was based on a movie and gave it a score based on that, without even playing any of the game.
The same thing happened 2 years ago with “The Simpsons Game”. Again, anyone who actually played it would have realised it was one of the most fun games of it’s launch year but because it didn’t get the “Hype” of some games that came out that year (Halo 3 or Bioshock, which weren’t NEARLY as good) it’s Metascore doesn’t reflect that.
Then there was “Sonic Unleashed” last year – one of the most fun games i’ve played this entire generation but becuase it wasn’t a “Traditional” 2D side – scrolling Sonic game it was labelled as a franchise breaking title rather than the fantastic, innovative game it was.
Reviewers give in to hype…………most of them probably don’t even know what games they’re rating, they just give it a good score if it’s really anticipated and a low score if it’s not.
November 15, 2009
#33
I have played the “WANTED” and “Sonic Unleashed” demos, and the whole “Simpsons Game”, and I found them to be very horrible games. The controls made you feel like you were controlling a drunk alcholic, the graphics were PS2-era at best, and there really didn’t seem to be much of a story in any of them (don’t judge me on the story for the two games I only played demos of, since you really can’t tell a story from one level). If you are a gamer, then I must be a gamer god because I can actually tell what is good and evil in gaming.
November 15, 2009
#34
Real Gamer??? Change your name now. Judging a game based on the Demo is no different than judging the game without playing it AT ALL. If you ONLY played the Demo for “Race Driver: GRID” then you probably thought THAT was a clunky, awkward mess as well. Whereas any REAL gamer knows that the final version was far, FAR different and was easily one of the best racing games of all time. Gamer god??? LOL……only complete noobs think the Demo of a game = overall experience. Like i said – anyone who’s actually played the GAMES would know how great they are.
If you really could tell what is good and evil in gaming then you would know how ridiculous you sound. Reviewers judging games based on portions of the game (That would include a Demo) is exactly what’s wrong with reviews today.
November 15, 2009
#35
Reviews scores are artificial, they mean nothing. Most reviews are not critical at all. Whether it’s a paragraphs or 10 page monstrosity, reviews are nothing more then fans of games talking about how great a game is as though there obligated to say so, and they are. We all know review scores from the big names like ign, game informer, gamespot are bought and payed for. Game and journalist don’t be long in the same sentence. Game reviewers are hacks.