IGN's review of ChoroQ

[Drewbacca]

Couldn't this all be easily solved by whoever is writing the reviews (IGN, GamePro, TNL, Got-Next, Gamespy, etc...) to have a simple table to define what their scores mean?

Honestly, it's too much to expect. Nobody's going to read this stuff, and I'm sure some sites have it too. If your rating system is plain as day enough to get through to the reader on the first look, then you need to look at your rating system and not your readers.

[Opaque]

One thing that bothers me with scores is how so many people actually base purchases soley on scores. When I'm buying a game, I'm not thinking, "well, this game got a nine...", I'm thinking about the facts involved with the game. Is the story interesting? What compelling reason is there to play Game X over Game Y? and so on. I simply can't imagine basing my spending on the numerical representation of one person's opinion on a game, or anything else for that matter.

I don't think many people buy only because of reviews, atleast I hope not. For me, it's just a second opinion if I'm not 100% sure on a game. For example, I was kind of interested in Magic Pengel back before it came out, but I wasn't really sure if it was going to be a good game for me or other wise; when the good review started coming in though, I figured it was a safe bet to buy it, and I was right.

[Mzo]

I give Magic Pengel a 3 out of 5.

[StriderKyo]

Sure, this removes your "ability" to compare games on a microscopic level, but that's all an illusion anyway. So NBA Street Vol. 2 gets a 94 and Zelda gets a 97. Can you feel that three points of difference while you're playing them?

Yes. No, seriously, I can. Not because I have magic Nick Rox sunglasses that display exact percentiles onscreen when I'm playing, but my brain does slot different aspects of a game into a hierarchy measured against its peers. Now, does that matter if all you need to know is whether something's worth buying? I guess not. But game reviews are the closest thing gaming has to serious establishment discourse for individual games. In my perfect (and wholly imaginary) world, they indicate more than "yeah it's good, go buy it."

And no, I really don't feel bad at all about Zelda or whatever classic untouchable golden child of a game sharing space with stellar sports games, because people who enjoy sports titles tell me these games are just that great. I can accept that. Gladius ... well, that was before halves came in, I think. I can accept someone saying it's more of a 4 than a 3. It has its fans, or so I hear. I guess that's a little tradeoff of a coarser system. Some games are going to seem like "low 4s" while others are "high 4s."

Gladius got 4 1/2 stars. It's a well made, relatively fun srpg with great production values. It's also fairly repetitive and currently sits on my shelf half finished.

As for Tiger Woods...it was okay. A pretty fun golf game. I could name 10 sports games that are better. Possibly 20. I could even name golf games that are better. I'm not questioning the reviewer's opinion that he felt it was a great game and worthy of purchase, but there's no distinction in that score between TW 2003 and games that redefined genres or gaming as a whole. Games that sold systems, gave birth to cults of worship, and passionate communities that stuck with them plumbing the depths of their gameplay and debating their finer points for years.

Safe to say, Tiger's not really such a game, and were he scoring out of 100 or even ten, the reviewer most likely would not have given it a 'perfect' score - nobody else anywhere did. But from the review score, there's no discernible difference of opinion between the quality of an annual EA update and a Half Life or Metal Gear Solid, since they're all judged well worth buying in that system.

It's kind of like girls. When you first meet a girl, you know if you'd hit it or not. Simple as that. There's none of this, "Well, Suzy is about an 81 on the hitability scale, so maybe I'd put this girl at a 86 or so." You'd hit it, or you wouldn't. End of story. I say the same works for games. Either it's worth putting out the effort to experience, or it isn't.

Yeah, but if I was choosing between Suzy & Ms 86, I'd take Ms. 86 & be damn glad I had such a precise rating system, otherwise I'd be dating a chick who barely cleared 80 instead of a solid "very good in its genre. Minor issues" chick. And thus, reproductive superiority is mine.

IGN gives out scores for every single game they review, and they have a page that outlines what scores are supposed to mean. Yet, the editorial staff cant decide what a 5.0 actually means. Im just calling a spade a spade.

Okay, but there's a way to express that without resorting to nasty personal attacks. And you're bright enough to know how to do that.

[Jeremy]

Opaque, scarily, I've actually seen this first-hand, with folks in a store talking about what to buy. Then I saw folks on the web do the same thing...rather scary in some ways, actually.

[Drewbacca]

I also don't think comparing girls to games is a valid counter scale. While guys like me can play the AAA's, guys like Mzo are stuck with 3 out of 5. Unless we're talking prostitutes here, in which case the rules are pretty much the same.

Seriously though, I think every game should assign a game a perfect score at the beginning and deduct points for mis steps, specifically, in certain categories.

[AaronChance]

And I think the logical breakdown of games is idiotic.

I use a 5 point system with half points and a score based on my enjoyment of the game, which every factor contributes to (yes I can judge my enjoyment with ten levels of accuracy). I'd give Morrowind a 5/5 because despite the numeroous flaws it possesses, it offered me such a level of continuous enjoyment that hasn't been matched since. I'm not going to get all technical on it and take points off for the repetitive music or the stiff animation because that seems to miss the whole point of games in the first place. To me 'is it fun?' and 'is it worth buying?' are the same question, so that's what I shoot for when I think of the score.

BTW, I got a review copy of Choro Q and it's pretty meh all around. The racing and customization work well, but the visuals are surprisingly bland, the music downright annoying, and the menus pretty clunky. Though I only played it for a half hour so far.

[Brisco Bold]

Actually, it wouldn't. Most private or prestigeous schools in Quebec give extra credit most of the time. A Quebec 50 is really a 65 everywhere else in Canada.

Really? Ew.

[Joust Williams]

"Seriously though, I think every game should assign a game a perfect score at the beginning and deduct points for mis steps, specifically, in certain categories."

This is the only scoring system I would like. I've thought about it myself for some time now.

[Diff-chan]

To me 'is it fun?' and 'is it worth buying?' are the same question, so that's what I shoot for when I think of the score.

IBTN.

For all of this Japanophile fagginess, Ammandeau knows how scoring games should be.