The whole "game should be spotted 7 points because it loads up and your guy does stuff on screen when you press a button" is the worst argument ever.
Printable View
The whole "game should be spotted 7 points because it loads up and your guy does stuff on screen when you press a button" is the worst argument ever.
The guy's right for the wrong reason. The problem isn't that his game was scored to low, it's that most outlets' "average" score is too high. By definition, there can't be twice as many degrees of "worse than average" as there are of "better than average". On a sanely designed 10-point scale*, a 4 would be "slightly worse than average," which by most accounts seems to describe this game.
*Personally I think even this is excessive - all you really need is 5, with no fractions or decimals. 1 = unmitigated garbage, 2 = bad, 3 = mediocre, 4 = good, 5 = instant classic.
In general, I agree, but keep in mind that a large fraction of games don't get reviewed at all and would likely fill in a lot of the sub-6 area that seems vacant in the mainstream reviews.
Edge, according to Metacritic, scores games lower than average 83% of the time and has an average of 64, which sounds about right to me. After all, they don't even touch the really bad stuff.
But really isn't the problem that we are expecting enthusiast sites to be intellectually honest? IGN exists to meddle in fanboy arguments(because it drives hits) and hoover up PR money (because it's money).
That's pretty cool. I never noticed that stuff on Metacritic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
The problem with this guys statement is that Lords of Shadow 2 IS broken, it does have gameplay mechanics that don't work, and it's graphics are awful. A 4 out of 10 is completely fair for this half-assed effort of a game. Personally, I would score it a 6, but a 4 surely isn't unreasonable, considering how unpolished it is in just about every area.Quote:
Originally Posted by MechDeus
There's some merit in parts of the argument though - it feels like writers often just roll with how they feel about a game, than drawing from some canonical set of rules or standards on what makes a game of quality. Like it or not, music, movies, painting, theater - all other forms of art/entertainment have some ground rules on how to write thoughtful criticism, some elements used to determine a quality of something.
Not that's to say all criticism in these venues abide by those rules 100% of the time, but at least they're there. So when he cries that there's a difference between having an opinion on something vs. a valid criticism...I can see it. I think he's only bringing it up because he's butthurt that Edge won't fawn over what's (seemingly) a terrible game though.
They often have better critics, but the rules on the critiquing are no different. Most newspaper movie reviewers are just as horrible as whatever major videogame website you're thinking of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hero
That's why I said it's not that other reviewers are better, but at least the foundation for (what counts for) good criticism is there. Formal elements of film that are considered to be foundational for making something of a certain quality. A good eye for film can discern good acting, cinematography, direction, lighting, score, etc. and the why/how behind how those things work, how they're of high quality, and how all the elements work together to elevate the entire experience. Formal stuff like that, whether its because those standards were established and writers had followed it, or it's because of good writing that a pattern naturally emerged, I don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by MechDeus
While these rules exist in movies and plenty of reviewers ignore it, I don't even think we have that. Or the other way - we just have poor writers who can't clearly elucidate why something is good or bad in a way that shows true critical thought was applied to review process. Either no one wants to establish a canon because that would be seen as too restricting/too pretentious and reviewers would rather be able to review purely on feelings than any sense of structured criticism, or games writers are just bad and don't even consider these things in the first place.
Yet if we're going to say that all criticism is subjective, etc. and there's no right way to do any of it, fine. Then sites like Metacritic shouldn't exist. I'll even swing the other way and say Rotten Tomatoes shouldn't either. Yet I don't think there's a strength in wanting it both ways - to say that criticism is highly subjective and shouldn't be a slave to formal rules, yet we'll take all that information and aggregate it in the most calculated way possible to make sense of it all. If we want to standardize the end result of reviews, then I think we need better reviews to begin with.
As if game reviews haven't had the formal foundation of graphics, controls, sound, gameplay, etc since forever.