IGN's review of ChoroQ

[cka]

http://ps2.ign.com/articles/556/556635p1.html

lol it looks like markryan wrote that

[Jeremy]

I can think of other TNLers who would write something like that rather easily. Entertaining piece of tripe though.

[MarkRyan]

lol it looks like markryan wrote that

What's that supposed to mean?

[StriderKyo]

"Right now it's sucking in the universe and bending light."

I like that line. Other than that, I don't think the dude's trying hard enough to sound like Tycho from PA. Okay, yes I do.

[Dipstick]

This was written by the same guy who wrote the Crisis Zone and Under the Skin reviews. He sounds obscenely bitter (although both of those reviews are markedly better than the ChoroQ one -- the fact that both games are significantly better (even being below average) probably helps).

These scores really screw up the standard IGN bellcurve though -- normally, a game getting a 5.0 on there would translate to an uninflated -6 out of 10.

-Dippy

[MarkRyan]

These scores really screw up the standard IGN bellcurve though -- normally, a game getting a 5.0 on there would translate to an uninflated -6 out of 10.

There's a sort of on-going war here as to what the scores should actually mean. Some people (PS2 guys) think that 5.0 should be a middle score--anything above 5 is "decent to great" and anything below is "bad to utter crap." Other guys (PC) operate on a school grade scale--an 8 is a B, a 7 is a C game, and anything less than a 6 is a complete failure.

And then there's the Xbox guys, where anything that's Xbox exclusive is an 8.0 or higher

[Diff-chan]

I predict that someone on TNL, probably Jeremy or James, will buy this game, make a thread about how its "worth the $15", then tons of people will buy it and say "yep, Im loving this so far...". And then I will laugh and call of them fags and then Ill get yelled at and the mods will then hate me even more. That's justice for you.

There's a sort of on-going war here as to what the scores should actually mean. Some people (PS2 guys) think that 5.0 should be a middle score--anything above 5 is "decent to great" and anything below is "bad to utter crap." Other guys (PC) operate on a school grade scale--an 8 is a B, a 7 is a C game, and anything less than a 6 is a complete failure.

I agree with the PC guys. I mean, really, we've all, with the possible exception of IronPlant, had our 13 years of compulsory educaton, so that system is ingrained in our head. You see a game get a 6.5, and its not decent, its not great, it sucks. And really, whats the difference between a 2.3 and a 4.4? Theyre both terrible.

[Grave]

I agree with the PC guys. I mean, really, we've all, with the possible exception of IronPlant, had our 13 years of compulsory educaton, so that system is ingrained in our head. You see a game get a 6.5, and its not decent, its not great, it sucks. And really, whats the difference between a 2.3 and a 4.4? Theyre both terrible.

I also agree that this rating system, while also imperfect, is a lot easier to react accordingly to. I got a 6.5/10 on a paper last week. That's a horrible grade and since I have the option of a rewrite, I'm taking it. If I see a game get a 6.5/10, I'm feeling much less enthusiastic about dropping $50 on it.

If they have to use a 10 scale, 5 should not be "decent."

[MarkRyan]

Personally, I hate rating games period. But I think using the entire scale, 1-10, is a lot more flexible than the A, B, C, D, fail shit. There might as well only be a 5 star scale if you're going to limit what a "good" score is to three numbers.

[Mzo]

There might as well only be a 5 star scale if you're going to limit what a "good" score is to three numbers.

I agree.