Overwritten.net
Games => General Gaming => Topic started by: sirean_syan on Friday, June 22, 2007, 05:32:38 PM
-
The Link. (http://www.gamespot.com/news/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=25721552&sid=6173024&action=convert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;title;0)
I think I can get behind something like this. Some people put too much stock in the raw numbers anyways ("X game got 8.8, it's better than Y, which got 8.7") and I've become more partial to hearing a game is pretty enjoyable, but really cool because it has some standout feature. I imagine that's what the awards stuff will be. Really, the way go reviews work, 9+'s are generally a safe bet while 7-8's are dependent on extra stuff. All the .1's really don't make a difference, so it the scoring system seems like it really can simplify things as advertised.
Still, in terms of raw numbers GS was generally the place to go. Kinda sad to see that go.
.... damn I miss Kasavin.
-
Sounds like they are "streamlining" the scoring system.
-
Yes. That's just a synonym for simplify, what Gerstman said the system was supposed to do.
-
Not being much a fan of Gerstmann, I don't know. Actually, I've really been less thrilled with GSpot in recent months. It just seems like I'm no longer on the same wavelength with them when it comes to a lot of stuff (and no, I don't mean Kevin VanOrd and his stupid Dawn of Mana review... I'm talking more about the writing in general, the kinds of features they've had, other stuff). I still like the site and all, I just feel like I'm growing more distant from it. I don't know if this would be another symptom of that or not.
-
I've felt pretty much the same way lately; however, I figured it had more to do with my current gaming habits than anything else. It does feel like something is shifting, though, and I want to say it has something to do with the lack of Kasavin. I'm willing to admit that I come to that conclusion without much basis other than missing Greg.
-
I think the problem is that now most of the people in power I don't trust. I like a number of the guys down further on the totem pole, but they don't seem to be the ones running the show. I really don't care for a lot of the people on staff, and didn't even when Kas was on staff, but now that he's gone it seems like a lot of the people I didn't like much are stepping up to fill bigger roles, and that doesn't work so well for me.
-
I've never liked Gamespot, they don't do anything other than review and preview, anything extra likes Top 10 Lists and awards are all the same as the other sites. They don't have a mailbag, special features, editorials or anything like IGN or even GameSpy. The only thing anyone has to say with this site is about their "strict" rating system. I think hatred for GS has started since they've started rating good games that the public enjoys lower scores than they deserve. They've damn near bashed every game out on the Wii,PSP and most of the games on the 360 and PS3 for minor stuff. They're just changing the rating system so they can simplify it for us "dumb people" that they think they know so much better than.
-
Looks like a load of crap to me. Why change it? Everyone knows that the 10-point scale is really a 100-point scale divided by 10, where only numbers in the upper 40 percent of the scale really matter. I.e., it's school grades divided by 10. Everyone understands school grades, because everyone (hopefully) went to school and got grades. Nobody cares about a game that gets 60% (6.0) or less. An 80% (8.0) is immensely better, and a 90% (9.0) is much better still. With so much subjective difference between a 6.0 and a 10.0, why the hell would you want to restrict it further?
-
I don't put too much weight behind any numbering scheme; to be honest I think a number at the end of a two page review is just too arbitrary. You can discuss it and try to define it all you like but at the end of the day one number slapped on a review doesn't clearly convey how the author of the review felt about the game – it’s what’s in the review that I care about.
-
I still like the 5 star scale.
1 - Crap
2 - Below Average
3 - Average
4 - Above Average
5 - Excellent
What the fuck is the difference between a 9.0 and a 9.1?
-
I still like the 5 star scale.
1 - Crap
2 - Below Average
3 - Average
4 - Above Average
5 - Excellent
What the fuck is the difference between a 9.0 and a 9.1?
Nothing, it took something as simple as G4's X-Play to explain their five star system and have it make sense. I think the whole "tilt" option is where they went wrong...
-
I still like the 5 star scale.
1 - Crap
2 - Below Average
3 - Average
4 - Above Average
5 - Excellent
What the fuck is the difference between a 9.0 and a 9.1?
9.1 is a little better of a score than a 9.0.
Every little point does matter, if you ask me.
W/ their new system, from 8.0 to 9.0, all you have is 8.0, 8.5, and 9.0. There's no real wiggle room in-between here.
For example, in their old system, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. got an 8.5. DIRT for the PC got an 8.3. STALKER has a better score than DIRT, so therefore G-Spot is saying STALKER's a better game than DIRT -- shown as barely better score-wise and all -- but it is better, regardless. It got a better score, even if it's only a few points. That's the difference.
In the new scoring system, DIRT's old 8.3 score just might fall somewhere b/t 8.0 and 8.5. Much less accuracy. Since the number came out to an 8.3, they'd probably either round it down to an 8.0 or round it up to a 8.5. Doesn't sound too accurate, to me.
So, okay -- what about a game that gets a 9.8??? Or a 9.7??? Do we round this up to a 10??? A game shouldn't get a 10 b/c of rounding up purposes. It should actually EARN the 10.
I'm sure say a 9.6 would be rounded down to a 9.5, but that's not fair to the game earning the 9.6, now is it???
Looks like a load of crap to me. Why change it? Everyone knows that the 10-point scale is really a 100-point scale divided by 10, where only numbers in the upper 40 percent of the scale really matter. I.e., it's school grades divided by 10. Everyone understands school grades, because everyone (hopefully) went to school and got grades. Nobody cares about a game that gets 60% (6.0) or less. An 80% (8.0) is immensely better, and a 90% (9.0) is much better still. With so much subjective difference between a 6.0 and a 10.0, why the hell would you want to restrict it further?
Agreed 100% Cobra.
-
If we're going for accuracy, why stop at the tens decimal? We should give games a 9.34, which is better than a 9.32 but not as good as a 9.35.
STALKER got 8.5, DiRT 8.3, therefore STALKER is better than DiRT? How so? Gamespot didn't compare the games to each other, they are rating the games based on their own fields and their own merits. How do you compare a free-form FPS with a rally racer? It just doesn't work that way. Thats the kind of thing a simpler review scoring system would try to prevent.
Look at Ebert and Roeper. Two thumbs up, one up one down, and two thumbs down. Thats it. Those are the "scores" any movie will get. They just give you a basic idea of the quality of the movie. Two up? Good movie, probably worth seeing. One each? Might want to see if the subject matter interests you. Two down? Probably not worth your time. And just because Cars got the same score as Saving Private Ryan doesn't mean they are equal, but they are great movies for their target audience. Back to Dirt and Stalker, if both got 8.5 that just means Dirt is a good rally racer and Stalker is a good FPS. That are both good titles aimed at certain gamers.
-
Yeah D, no offense, but that's a pretty ignorant way of looking at it. I don't really feel decimals matter in the least bit either, though these days I'm almost starting to feel like reviews don't even matter. Half the time I seem to disagree with people, and 90% of the time I can tell a great game before I even see it move. I instantly knew Odin Sphere was going to have something special about it before I even read anything or looked at a movie, and that was based on like 2 screenshots. I think it just happens more and more frequently that you can tell when a developer has a great idea and is running with it. Obviously this isn't truly reliable as there will always be games that look great but fail on certain key levels, but I just feel like that's becoming something we see less and less. Most of the review reading I do now is out of curiosity, not a need for information.
-
I'm all for getting rid of decimals. Just use the percentage scale that everyone understands. The numbers are subjectively determined, but they definitely reflect how games stack up against each other in the judgement of the given publication. Either you trust their opinions, or you don't. They should strive to be accurate in any case. A 1000 point scale would be overkill perhaps, but I have no problem at all with what's really a 40-point scale when based on 100. If you base it on 10, and do away with decimals, you're effectively going to have 5 grades total, 6-10. People have the mindset that scores of 5 and below are so bad that it's hardly worth discussing whether a game which got a 5 deserves your dollars more than the one which got a 3. You're going to ignore both. Now you can't quantify a subjective difference between 2 very good games anymore. You should have that freedom as a reviewer who has to cater to an audience that expects numbers.
-
It always amazes me how much stock people put in reviewers and review scores. Honestly, just read the review. If you're too busy to do that then why the fuck are you playing video games anyways?
-
It always amazes me how much stock people put in reviewers and review scores. Honestly, just read the review. If you're too busy to do that then why the fuck are you playing video games anyways?
Well said sir!
-
It always amazes me how much stock people put in reviewers and review scores. Honestly, just read the review. If you're too busy to do that then why the fuck are you playing video games anyways?
Haha too true :D