Quantcast
View Post

 

Runa216 said:
vlad321 said:

You admit that you gave inFamous an 8.9 when it was glitchy. You talk of the good old days of reviewing, but I clearly remember games with bugs and other stuff not getting over an 8.5 or an 8. Newsflash, the score system goes from 1-10 not 6-10. Basically, practice what you preach.


how am I not?  not EVERY review did the same thing, and I know some of the best games ever released have glitches in them.  the issue is: Do the glitches negatively impact the gameplay?  I found in inFamous 2, they really didn't.  yeah there was a very odd time it happened, but I went through the game, my brother went through it twice, and each of my friends that I leant the game to went through it, and put together, all 5 times through the game, there were perhaps three physical glitches, the rest were strictly aesthetic.  that's not game breaking, but it is worth mentioning and it's enough to keep it from that coveted 90%+.  

Also, I have a very clear way to review things: 

95-100 - Absolutely exemplary, unrivalled games, the best ever, flawless in practically every way

90-94 - Truly fantastic, cream of the crop type stuff. Near perfection. 

80-89 - Great games, fantastic in almost every way, some flaws keep it from 9+

70-79 - Good games, these games are really fun to play in spite of their flaws

60-69 - decent games. These are fun to play but have parts that detract from their score

50-59 - Acceptable games. marred with issues but still worth playing if just to say you did

40-49 - Poor games, where the unpleasantness outweighs the good, but they might still be worth playing for that one good gameplay mechanic or the story

30-39 - Bad Games, these games may have their fun parts, but they are mostly bad with few redeeming factors

20-29 - horrible games, these games are fundamentally broken, unenjoyable, and have almost no redeeming factors

10-19 - atrocious games, they are an absolute mess, bad in every way

0-9 - offensively bad games, these get absolutely nothing right and even if they did they'd still be atrocious for other reasons such as story or graphics. 

 

pretty much exactly what GamrReview has as their criteria. 

 

 

Wow.... I was bored so I did the graph myself, it's a lot owrse than I thought it was. I don't even think I should have said "Practice what you preach" and outright called you a liar, because this is what the graph looks like:

 

Reviewers get absolutely no sympathy from me, only piss and vinegar when they cause shit like that to happen (btw those spikes are around the even 10s and 5s). Oh pelase tell me you also see the problem with this graph.

Edit: Basically a 80 is actually a 55 or so, an 90 is around a 75, and so on and so forth.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835