Support NeoGAF

[NervousXtian]

Biased reviews and moneyhatting journalists should end first...

Conspiracy, let alone "grand conspiracy" doesn't make any sense. That implies some sort of subtlety or secretiveness. The corruption in the games media industry is neither of those: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...how-video-game-journalism-went-off-the-rails/ Great article, but if you actually do think the games media has any integrity whatsoever then it might also be a depressing read. Suffice to say - by and large, they don't.

I was around when all that stuff in the Forbes article went down. I still think it's a giant leap to say games media has no integrity.

Is there some people in games media with no integrity? Sure. Yet you are painting with a mighty huge brush there.

I think when people label them as "games media" as opposed to actual human beings behind these reviews it is so much easier to declare them all morally bankrupt.

So in the end, this conspiracy stuff you both bring up, just like your tear down of the Titanfall review is because you disagree with the review. So your logical leap is to claim moneyhats or conspiracy?

Why can't the simpler solution be, they have a different opinion.

 

[Synth]

stuff

The problem with your critique is that you simply don't believe the game deserves the score it received. If I wrote up a review for Uncharted or Gears of War, it would be massively at odds with basically any review either of those games received. That doesn't mean that I'm going to claim the reviewers were bought off, and begin listing everything about their reviews that I disagree with (which would be a lot).

You say it has bad graphics, whilst I feel the graphics are perfectly acceptable. I don't find them to be impressive, but they not bad to the point that I actually notice this whilst playing (unlike something like Lococycle where it would be on my mind the whole damn time). You're also selectively singling out people that stated they would prefer larger player counts whilst ignoring all the people that stated that after having played it they feel the max player choice makes perfect sense. As I argued in the thread we had on the 6v6 player count, I honestly believe providing the option for an increased player count would likely be detrimental to the game, as the maximum option tends to automatically become the default.

It seems the biggest problem you have with the review aren't the simple hyperbolic statements (that exist in pretty much any game's review, good or bad). It's that you disagree with it, and feel that your opinion on the aspects you differ on carry more weight than the reviewers.

Finally adding the qualifier "available at launch" makes sense considering Respawn has already mentioned that there will be additions such as private lobbies in the future. It is already known the game's current feature set isn't final. Stating this does not automatically mean that it had a positive bearing on the final score. Killer Instinct shipped with much of it's content missing until far off into the future, this was mentioned in the majority of the reviews, yet it was still rated based on the current content available and often scored lower as a result.

The campaign did suck though...

Interesting idea! Given how little dignity gaffers were able to comport themselves with during the 6-8 months run-op to release of PS4 and XB1 last year, I'd worry such would run the risk of resembling metacritic's user reviews section pretty fast.

I'm not at all convinced that we're not actually already a large portion of Metacritic's user review section.

 

[Sulik2]

A 100-point scale is stupid. Believe it or not, I actually prefer the old GamePro scale:



There are certain things you can give objective scores for. For example, a game that manages 1080p@60fps should get a better score in that category than a different version of the same game running at half the frame rate, or you may give a game that stutters to single digits a low score in that category. Things like audio and gameplay may still get high scores in this scenario, though, which is perfectly fine. There's too much stuff happening in games at once to lump everything into one score, imho.

I actually like these categories a lot. Way to complicated for your average person who looks at 1 review a year, but its a great idea to use categories so you can try to be objective on whats objective and then have your subjective category in fun factor.

 

[elhav]

I think scores are pointless and don't mean anything, and they prevent people from reading the actual fucking reviews.

If scores did not exist, people would have to read the actual review to know why they would, or wouldn't like it. A reviewer will have to explain in details why he liked/disliked the game, so you could see if you share the same taste. A rushed review just won't cut it.

But of course, all of us like to see our favourite games get high scores, and seeing those scores push sales. Still doesn't make it worthwhile imo.

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

but its a great idea to use categories so you can try to be objective on whats objective and then have your subjective category in fun factor.

There is nothing more objective about rating each category individually than doing an overall score. What constitutes "good" visuals, music, sound, and gameplay are just as subjective as when taken as a whole

 

[Sulik2]

There is nothing more objective about rating each category individually than doing an overall score. What constitutes "good" visuals, music, sound, and gameplay are just as subjective as when taken as a whole

1080p 60FPS and image quality are very objective. 7.1 Sound and controls that aren't laggy and broken are all very objective things. You can make a technical category very easily that actually rates stuff like this. Imagine if BF4 had a network category at most review sit and could have gotten destroyed for its problems. The key to do categories like this is clearly having a well defined limited objective category and then your subjective fun, story, gameplay categories. And then never, ever average them together.

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

1080p 60FPS and image quality are very objective. 7.1 Sound and controls that aren't laggy and broken are all very objective things..

You are aware there's a lot more that goes into rating graphics and sound than just resolution and framerate, and how many audio channels a game supports, right? Same with gameplay being far more than just controls. And even assuming you could be objective based on everything else entailed (which you can't), how would you even weigh them? Would 720p 60fps be worse than 1080p 30fps?

I see no reason why those even need to be rated in that matter. What you want could be accomplished with a bullet-pointed list; there's absolutely no reason those need to be scored--particularly, again, as they're mere elements of each of those categories. Many people don't care if a game runs at 720p vs 1080p; why should a game be automatically docked for that if it makes up for it with greater visual fidelity elsewhere (which again, would be a subjective issue)

 

[Vice]

1080p 60FPS and image quality are very objective. 7.1 Sound and controls that aren't laggy and broken are all very objective things. You can make a technical category very easily that actually rates stuff like this. Imagine if BF4 had a network category at most review sit and could have gotten destroyed for its problems. The key to do categories like this is clearly having a well defined limited objective category and then your subjective fun, story, gameplay categories. And then never, ever average them together.

The objectice categores would just be a list with checkboxes. That's not a review. It would be like noting that a book has legible font as a key part of the review.

 

[GQman2121]

A thread this size is a perfect example of why numbered reviews are going nowhere. Too many people have too much _______ invested in the numbers game. It's quite sad.

Also, are posts in this thread being deleted for some reason?

 

[Squalor]

I wish gamers would stop thinking of themselves as some special exception.

Albums, books, movies, and televisions shows all receive quantifiable ratings. Grades and numbers for books happen less often, but they happen, nonetheless.

These are all media that existed long before video games. These are media with significantly higher cachets of reverence than video games.

Gamers need to get over themselves.

If you don't want to pay attention to numbers, don't pay attention to numbers.

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

The objectice categores would just be a list with checkboxes. That's not a review. It would be like noting that a book has legible font as a key part of the review.

And you put it so much more succinctly than I did. Exactly.

 

[NervousXtian]

And you put it so much more succinctly than I did. Exactly.

..and they serve no purpose as well. The focus on 1080p 60FPS doesn't imply any sort of quality to a game at all. That's like rating a stereo or speakers just on watts. It's not a number than confirms anything to do with quality.

One can make a game in 1080p that runs at a 120FPS with a 7.1 audio track that looks, plays and sounds like shit.


Those things when utilized correctly can enhance an experience, but in no way at all do the confirm an experience is worthwhile.

 

[CaptainGyro]

I don't know how anyone can say that resolution and framerate of a game don't have anything to do with the quality of a game

 

[see5harp]

I don't know how anyone can say that resolution and framerate of a game don't have anything to do with the quality of a game

Depends on the game. I don't give a fuck about the resolution of Picross.

 

[Tain]

In fact, we should go ahead and put an end to judgmental reviews. It's all subjective, after all.

 

[NervousXtian]

I don't know how anyone can say that resolution and framerate of a game don't have anything to do with the quality of a game

Did I say that?

Those things when utilized correctly can enhance an experience, but in no way at all do the confirm an experience is worthwhile.

I said as a whole those numbers in and of themselves alone don't mean anything to imply quality.

A game is a complete package, with resolution and framerate only making up part of that package.

Having a checklist of specs doesn't really mean anything without context.

 

[jdude0822]

What would stop somebody from taking an out of text quote from the review instead of the inflated numbers? Numbers are helpful for reviews when you look at reviews by people who generally represent your own taste. Same with movies, music, and food.

 

[SlowRevolution]

I don't mind the 5 star scale (half stars are dumb), any more than that and it gets kind of hard to judge. Kotaku's system is pretty good too.

Still think it's crazy that IGN went back to their ridiculous 100 point scale.

 

[Tain]

What would stop somebody from taking an out of text quote from the review instead of the inflated numbers? Numbers are helpful for reviews when you look at reviews by people who generally represent your own taste. Same with movies, music, and food.

Yeah. Can you imagine how horrible it would be if people could go around summing up reviews as "favorable" or "unfavorable"?

 

[Luigison]

I give this thread a 3/10 for content and an 11/10 for concept.

 

[CaptainGyro]

Did I say that?

sure seemed like it to me

..and they serve no purpose as well. The focus on 1080p 60FPS doesn't imply any sort of quality to a game at all. That's like rating a stereo or speakers just on watts. It's not a number than confirms anything to do with quality.
.

but whatever. I am on the pro-score side so i agree with you in general

 

[Steve Youngblood]

As I sit here and think about it a little more, I still maintain that there is no need for controversy here. Personally, I think reviewers/critics should -- assuming they feel like assigning a final grade/score at all -- use whatever scale they're comfortable with. Consumers and industry types alike would be well served to recognize that while there is utility in aggregating critical opinion of a product, it shouldn't be considered the end-all-be-all assessment of the product's worth.

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

I don't know how anyone can say that resolution and framerate of a game don't have anything to do with the quality of a game

That's not what anyone said

 

[Snakeyes]

No, OP. No.

What must end is the salt about numbered reviews. So a series of review scores about a game people were anticipating weren't as high as hoped. So fucking what? There wasn't all this crying about Titanfall or Killzone or BF or KI or Stryder or TR or Thief. But now a game some put all their hope in came up just a little shorter than hyped (and still a good game by all measures!) and suddenly a review system that has been in place and useful for over 20 years must be flawed and must go rather than accepting some imperfection? No room in your egos for that, guys? All of the reviews with numbered scores offer lengthy commentaries and usually a summary of bullet points at the end, so it's not like they don't offer details and justification along with a number that can be of some use to those having a hard time figuring out what all of the preceding text means in relative terms. The number is the only way to measure how a review team feels about a product in the context of a marketplace full of similar games. It's the answer to the subjective, "which one might be better" number in the opinion of that reviewer or team. Whether you agree with the opinions or not is immaterial. It's someone's opinion, and should be weighted with all other opinions. Numbers shouldn't affect you beyond helping add a relative context to their opinion on the game compared to other games released recently or relative to other games in a given genre or franchise.

So no, how about some of you find something else to attach so much emotion and self-security to. It's just a product (that you didn't make, nor own stock in), and games are largely imperfect. That's okay. Most games will not be metacritic 90s. That's fine too. If you need MC 90s and/or GoTY commentaries to feel good about a purchase you've been looking forward to, you're doing gaming wrong.

This kind of conversation along with the existence of system warriors/fanboys are really a referendum on the insecurity and sensitivity of large cross-sections of the gaming populous. That needs to be addressed, not review score styles. If you like a game, go enjoy it. If you can't handle reviews, don't read them. But no, the 20+ year-old system -- a system older than many of you -- isn't the problem here. Believe that.

Well said.

 

[nssdigitalchumps]

As I sit here and think about it a little more, I still maintain that there is no need for controversy here. Personally, I think reviewers/critics should -- assuming they feel like assigning a final grade/score at all -- use whatever scale they're comfortable with. Consumers and industry types alike would be well served to recognize that while there is utility in aggregating critical opinion of a product, it shouldn't be considered the end-all-be-all assessment of the product's worth.

This. People shouldn't depend on others for opinions, go develop your own. One man's shit is another man's treasure.

See God Hand for example.

 

[Paracelsus]

They should on AAA games, like "granted a game is backed by these publishers [INCOMING LIST] and has a budget going from a to b, it is legally required to omit numbers from the review".

 

[Vice]

I don't know how anyone can say that resolution and framerate of a game don't have anything to do with the quality of a game

Resolution and framerate mean nothing if the game is boring. It'd like focusing on getting aspect ratio in a review of Citizen Kane. These technical specs say nothing about the quality of the game part of the game the same way an aspect ratio says nothing about the story quality of a film.

Or, you can have a piece of shit game that runs at 60fps and 1080p but it's still a piece of shit no matter how well it runs.

 

[CaptainGyro]

That's not what anyone said

Well I don't even know why you guys are arguing then because nobody has said that the reviews that would contain these objective things like framerate and resolution would totally get rid of other subjective categories. They are saying they should have both, I don't know how that's a bad thing

 

[faridmon]

I hope we don't ignore the fact that score can be very helpful in terms of relativity with other games and whatnot. Yes, getting rid of it, might provide us more positivity across the board, but sometimes, its useful to see how much you liked (or maybe received) a certain game relative to others. I mean, I wouldn't write down my top albums of the year, if I didn't score them and look back at them with certain resonance and memory based on said score.

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

Well I don't even know why you guys are arguing then because nobody has said that the reviews that would contain these objective things like framerate and resolution would totally get rid of other subjective categories. They are saying they should have both, I don't know how that's a bad thing

Because those things are literally just data-points. It makes no sense for them to be rated, when you already have all the information. And again, I don't even want to know how you'd objectively quantify 720p @ 60fps vs 1080p @ 30fps, which is just one of a myriad possible situations. And at what point do you start grading based on upcoming technologies, like 4k?

It makes it way more complicated than it needs to be.

 

[GoldenA]

Probably just ignore the score if you don't like them. People who put them on have the right to do so i guess.

 

[CaptainGyro]

Because those things are literally just data-points. It makes no sense for them to be rated, when you already have all the information. And again, I don't even want to know how you'd objectively quantify 720p @ 60fps vs 1080p @ 30fps, which is just one of a myriad possible situations. And at what point do you start grading based on upcoming technologies, like 4k?

It makes it way more complicated than it needs to be.

Well he already admitted it was complicated and you already said that bullet points could mention framerate and resolution, so I don't think you guys are even that far off from each other really. Framerate ratings in a review vs framerate bullet points in a review.. same shit practically. You both seem to agree that they could be mentioned, and I also agree. I disagree that "they serve no purpose as well" as NervousXtian put it, or that including them makes it "not a review" as Vice put it. It also doesn't make the review " like rating a stereo or speakers just on watts" when it was obvious that Sulik meant the complete review was going to be based on more than just framerate and resolution.

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

Well he already admitted it was complicated and you already said that bullet points could mention framerate and resolution, so I don't think you guys are even that far off from each other really.

Indeed, but this entire topic is about scores, which is what I was specifically addressing. Listing them as bulletpoints is fine, and an idea I'm not opposed to. Trying to score them individually is.

 

[NervousXtian]

Indeed, but this entire topic is about scores, which is what I was specifically addressing. Listing them as bulletpoints is fine, and an idea I'm not opposed to. Trying to score them individually is.

Which is what I was addressing as well.

I never once talked about them not being important as part of a total evaluation. Only that they don't mean anything separated from the rest of the review. TNS, Vice and I were only addressing why rating such things is absurd.

 

[CaptainGyro]

Which is what I was addressing as well.

I never once talked about them not being important as part of a total evaluation. Only that they don't mean anything separated from the rest of the review. TNS, Vice and I were only addressing why rating such things is absurd.

I still don't understand how that makes any sense considering that the guy was also saying that the framerates and resolution ratings were just part of a total evaluation, or how rating 60 fps and 1080p " doesn't imply any sort of quality to a game at all." but alright I guess.

 

[NervousXtian]

I still don't understand how that makes any sense considering that the guy was also saying that the framerates and resolution ratings were just part of a total evaluation, or how rating 60 fps and 1080p " doesn't imply any sort of quality to a game at all." but alright I guess.

Not sure how I can better explain it than he was saying you could do a technical rating on things on frame rate, resolution, audio tracks, etc... and rate them purely on a technical level. Yet do you dock every game that's not 1080p because the devs valued something else instead?

As a checklist it honestly doesn't really tell you anything about a game's quality.

Doesn't even address PC games, where it would be completely dependent on the machine you ran the game on.

 

[CaptainGyro]

Not sure how I can better explain it than he was saying you could do a technical rating on things on frame rate, resolution, audio tracks, etc... and rate them purely on a technical level. Yet do you dock every game that's not 1080p because the devs valued something else instead?

As a checklist it honestly doesn't really tell you anything about a game's quality.

Doesn't even address PC games, where it would be completely dependent on the machine you ran the game on.

Of course not. You dock the resolution score, and you factor in what the devs valued over the resolution and then you do a total evaluation as has been mentioned. That could mean a docked overall score in some cases, it could mean an increased score.

 

[Dire]

I was around when all that stuff in the Forbes article went down. I still think it's a giant leap to say games media has no integrity.

Is there some people in games media with no integrity? Sure. Yet you are painting with a mighty huge brush there.

"When all that stuff went down"? Did you even read the article? (for reference to all: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...how-video-game-journalism-went-off-the-rails/) It isn't referencing a single event or even a series of events, but describing a trend over time. The particular reason I like that article is not only does it describe a wide array of history and trend of corruption in the games media, but explains largely "why" it happens and provides articles to even more discussion of games media corruption. The entire system of games media is inherently broken in that sites rely on publishers for funding and their livelihood with no means of stopping coercion in the system. If you don't see a problem -a conflict of interest- with company A providing the livelihood of company B, and company B making their living off reviewing company A's products then you're obviously trying to remain ignorant.

Finally you stating "I disagree with the Titanfall review" is equally absurd. What does that even mean? I disagree with some parts, I agree with other parts. In all I have relatively little opinion about the piece other than that it was obviously not written in earnest which is what the discussion was about. You asked me why I felt that way and I listed about a half dozen "PRisms" in the review that you would rarely if ever see in an objective review in most any medium, let alone all in the same article. Hell, let alone having an auto-playing hype generating audio/visual clip at the top of their review. Yeah that just screams objectivity! At least it's not as bad as EGM's review which forced people who wanted to see their review to sit through a full screen "Prepare for titanfall" audio/visual hype clip. Yeah more objectivity.

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

Of course not. You dock the resolution score, and you factor in what the devs valued over the resolution and then you do a total evaluation as has been mentioned.

But then you're right back to introducing subjectivity into the mix, which the original poster that started this chain was trying to avoid.

 

[CaptainGyro]

But then you're right back to introducing subjectivity into the mix, which the original poster that started this chain was trying to avoid.

He was trying to avoid any subjectivity at all in the review? No he wasn't. He clearly said that there would also be subjectivity in the reviews

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

He was trying to avoid any subjectivity at all in the review? No he wasn't. He clearly said that there would also be subjectivity in the reviews

No, when it came to the compartmentalized scores--which he put as an all-encompassing "graphics" one, not a resolution one.

But going with your thought process, I don't see the point at all in rating a resolution. What information does that provide that resolution itself doesn't? (and it introduces a host of other problems, as I've mentioned before, such as how will the scores be adjusted as new resolutions are introduced?)

 

[CaptainGyro]

No, when it came to the compartmentalized scores--which he put as an all-encompassing "graphics" one, not a resolution one.

No, actually he didn't. You just thought he did

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

No, actually he didn't. You just thought he did

1080p 60FPS and image quality are very objective. You can make a technical category very easily that actually rates stuff like this.The key to do categories like this is clearly having a well defined limited objective category and then your subjective fun, story, gameplay categories. And then never, ever average them together.

That was my read of it. Regardless, it still doesn't change the fact applying a rating to a datapoint makes no sense imo. Why does it need a rating when you have all the information you already need?

 

[NervousXtian]

"When all that stuff went down"? Did you even read the article? (for reference to all: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...how-video-game-journalism-went-off-the-rails/) It isn't referencing a single event or even a series of events, but describing a trend over time. The particular reason I like that article is not only does it describe a wide array of history and trend of corruption in the games media, but explains largely "why" it happens and provides articles to even more discussion of games media corruption. The entire system of games media is inherently broken in that sites rely on publishers for funding and their livelihood with no means of stopping coercion in the system. If you don't see a problem -a conflict of interest- with company A providing the livelihood of company B, and company B making their living off reviewing company A's products then you're obviously trying to remain ignorant.

Finally you stating "I disagree with the Titanfall review" is equally absurd. What does that even mean? I disagree with some parts, I agree with other parts. In all I have relatively little opinion about the piece other than that it was obviously not written in earnest which is what the discussion was about. You asked me why I felt that way and I listed about a half dozen "PRisms" in the review that you would rarely if ever see in an objective review in most any medium, let alone all in the same article. Hell, let alone having an auto-playing hype generating audio/visual clip at the top of their review. Yeah that just screams objectivity! At least it's not as bad as EGM's review which forced people who wanted to see their review to sit through a full screen "Prepare for titanfall" audio/visual hype clip. Yeah more objectivity.

Because there's negative reviews all the time, and I generally believe that most of these reviewers have some moral standards. I think it's insulting to insinuate that all of them are bought and paid for and nothing but part of the PR machine when it comes to reviews. Because honestly, looking through reviews... its not apparent how you even make that suggestion.

Also, about that Titanfall review... how do you know it was written in earnest.

I myself said I experience many of the exact feelings the author had with the part you posted, and yes I've read the whole review.

See, the problem is that you are taking the belief that your first paragraph above is true into the point you try to make with your 2nd paragraph.

If you believe they are corrupt, then why bother reading them at all? I'm not going convince you otherwise, because you want to believe it's a corrupt system and I don't believe it is as a whole.

Having worked a job where I got free shit from vendors, and my wife who got free shit from vendors ALL the TIME.. I can tell you straight up.. it never made any difference to me choosing to endorse their products or services. I just took there free stuff and did what I was going to do anyways.

 

[Briarios]

Numbered reviews will never end because people don't like to read.

They look at a number and suddenly think they're well informed -- like listening to a news broadcast about the economy makes them an expert in economics.

 

[Dire]

The problem with your critique is that you simply don't believe the game deserves the score it received. If I wrote up a review for Uncharted or Gears of War, it would be massively at odds with basically any review either of those games received. That doesn't mean that I'm going to claim the reviewers were bought off, and begin listing everything about their reviews that I disagree with (which would be a lot).

It's like some people on this forum can't disagree without completely straw manning the other's statements.

1. I don't disagree with the reviewer's score. That's a subjective matter. I actually already stated full support of conflicting opinions in this very thread! What stated made his review rather questionable was the the excessive use of PR-oriented phrasing of which I offered a number of examples of. At minimum that is evidence of fear of expressing anything that might be construed as a clearly negative opinion which leads to #2.

2. I didn't claim the reviewer was "bought off." I strongly doubt he received anymore than his likely very modest salary for the review. The problem isn't with the individual reviewers but the system as a whole. As mentioned previously:

Company A provides the livelihood company B.
Company B's job is to review the products of company A.

It's not like the reviewers are making big bucks for throwing out this stuff. It's simply expected of them. As Gerstman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gerstmann) was clear proof of - in the games media you give good reviews to companies throwing lots of money at your site, or you may very well end up fired.

Reason for GameSpot termination revealed
On March 15, 2012, it was announced that CBS Interactive, the parent company of GameSpot operator CNET, had acquired the Giant Bomb and Comic Vine websites from Whiskey Media.[14] As part of the deal, the non-disparagement agreement between Gerstmann and CNET was nullified, allowing him to finally speak publicly about his termination over four years prior. Later that evening on GameSpot's On the Spot web show, GameSpot VP John Davison appeared on camera with Gerstmann, marking Gerstmann's first appearance on the GameSpot web site since November 2007.[9] In the segment, Gerstmann revealed that his firing was in fact related to the low review score he had given to Kane & Lynch, though his explanation cited other similar events that led up to the termination, including a 7.5 (good) rating given to Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction by Aaron Thomas, then an employee under Gerstmann. Events such as these led to him being "called into a room" several times to discuss reviews posted on the site. Gerstmann went on to lay the blame on a new management team that was unable to properly handle tension between the marketing and editorial staff, laying additional blame on the marketing department, which he claimed was unprepared in how to handle publisher complaints and threats to withdraw advertising money over low review scores.

During the show, Gerstmann claimed he ran into a few members of [Kane & Lynch] developer IO Interactive at a convention a few months after his firing. He claims one of the people he ran into said, "Yeah, Kane & Lynch wasn't a very good game." Gerstmann responded, "You should totally call up my old bosses and tell them that."[15]

 

[CaptainGyro]

That was my read of it. Regardless, it still doesn't change the fact applying a rating to a datapoint makes no sense imo. Why does it need a rating when you have all the information you already need?

Like I said, as long as it is (resolution) mentioned somewhere in the review, either in bulletpoint or rating score, I don't think it really matters. Personally I'm not dying for a rating system on things like res and framerate, but I'm not against it like you guys are either and I don't think it's totally ludicrous.

 

[Synth]

It's like some people on this forum can't disagree without completely straw manning the other's statements.

Ok, I'd like to apologise for that, as I don't really disagree with the general point you're making, more the examples you gave for it.

Out of the examples you listed, only the first appears quesitonable. I don't think the graphics are objectively bad enough that it should be expected for the reviewer to specifically state that they are "bad" rather than simply not impressive. And it's entirely plausible that the reviewer does see the player count as a positive, and using the opinions of people that disagree as proof against it is unfair, when there are plenty of people such as myself who would also cite the focus on a player count that is balanced for the game's system as a positive over simply throwing in as many as is offered by a competing game.

To use these as examples of a lack of integrity on behalf of the reviewer is making the implication that these are invalid opinions to hold. Which I had a bit of a problem with, because they pretty much match my own.

 

[SpeedySwaf]

I think a 5-star system could work better than a 100-point scale, and it avoids the needless drama of something being below "excellent" or being a couple points higher/lower than another title.

1-star: Terrible. No redeemable qualities. Not worth your money, or your time.
2-star: Below average. Lots of weak areas, and its best is largely just adequate. Bargain bin purchase, if that.
3-star: Average. Does what it sets out to do, but just enough to keep you playing. It doesn't really fail, but it doesn't exceed, either. Might do one or two things very well, but not enough to carry the entire title. Worth it after a price-drop of two.
4-star: Good. Does lots of things right, and while it may not be groundbreaking, the game stays with you for a while, and you definitely enjoy it all the way through. Worth its price.
5-star: Excellent (but not necessarily perfect). Pushes the envelope, sets a goalpost for other developers to match or surpass, and is viewed as the pinnacle of a genre. Not just a must-buy, but something you would be reluctant to return or sell in the future as well.

 

[b3b0p]

A 100-point scale is stupid. Believe it or not, I actually prefer the old GamePro scale:



There are certain things you can give objective scores for. For example, a game that manages 1080p@60fps should get a better score in that category than a different version of the same game running at half the frame rate, or you may give a game that stutters to single digits a low score in that category. Things like audio and gameplay may still get high scores in this scenario, though, which is perfectly fine. There's too much stuff happening in games at once to lump everything into one score, imho.

All I cared about was Fun Factor.