By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Breath of the Wild, perfect scores, and framerate

Some frame rate issues shouldn't really hit a game, unless they are very very common.

Generally i am against nitpicking when it comes to tiny issues.



Around the Network
torok said:
Reviewers don't care that much about framerate. Gamers also don't give a damn, 95% of them don't have idea of the framerate their game is running. People play games and have fun, that's it.

Ocarina of Time, Shadow of the Colossus, all those ran badly. But they are great games regardless of framerate. A mediocre game at 144 fps still is just a mediocre game that nobody will remember after 1 or 2 years.

We just do care because websites told us what it was. When I was a kid, I used to love games with terrible framerates and didn't even knew what it was. Like Jeremy McGrath Supercross 98, it ran at the low 20s all the time. Honestly, I enjoyed games way more back then. Recently, I started to enjoy games like before since I stopped caring about it. I just check reviews to see if a game isn't broken or with severe performance issues.

We focus on framerates or resolution or draw disance or stuff like that, because it is measurable. No one can discuss that. But while all that might influence your experience with the game, it is not essential. Basically - which we shouldn't forget - the best game isn't a tech-demo, but what let's us forget the the time and gives us enjoyable experiences. And after all that is subjective as hell.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

Mummelmann said:
To be fair; people who disagree with perfect scores might just be thinking about issues beyond frame rate as well...

Not always. I've encountered some who objected to the perfect score based solely on the framerate.

last92 said:
tbh frame rate isn't even the most serious problem, even though it's very annoying especially in hyrule castle and in villages. I don't really care about metacritic but still I'm very surprised how many critics overlooked some issues.

At this point, you enter the realm of opinion. Framerate, I imagine, can be OBJECTIVELY measured. Same with resolution. Judgement of just about every other aspect of a game is subjective.



thismeintiel said:
If distracting frame rate drops aren't part of a score, even if fans say you can barely notice them (which means for the average gamer, it will be noticeable), then I guess games shouldn't be rated on any technical aspects at all. Shitty graphics? Who cares. Bugs galore? Who cares. Input lag? Phh. I had fun with the game, so I'm giving it a perfect (or damn near it) 10. Can't have it both ways, yet fans and reviewers try.

That's not terribly unreasonable.



I still get confused why the FPS drops happen, in certain ways. The towns I get. But, when I look up at the sky, in the town. Some things should be switching to low LOD/shutting off. But, they don't. Poor optimization. For the most part, I don't care. Since it happens to town areas. But, it does annoy me. When I was fighting Gerudo Beast boss. The cylinder room has low fps.



Around the Network
KLAMarine said:
thismeintiel said:
If distracting frame rate drops aren't part of a score, even if fans say you can barely notice them (which means for the average gamer, it will be noticeable), then I guess games shouldn't be rated on any technical aspects at all. Shitty graphics? Who cares. Bugs galore? Who cares. Input lag? Phh. I had fun with the game, so I'm giving it a perfect (or damn near it) 10. Can't have it both ways, yet fans and reviewers try.

That's not terribly unreasonable.

Depends on what you're looking for in a review.

Supposedly, the true purpose is to inform the consumer.  This makes giving a perfect mark to a game with issues potentially deceptive.  If consumers think that a score is a summary of the review--flaws included--then they might be surprised when a writer adds on the score as some kind of "personal enjoyment meter" instead.

That's what Jim Sterling does, which makes it odd that some of the same people protesting his scores are championing perfect 10s.  It's one or the other, people.  If you want the totally subjective "I enjoyed the game THIS MUCH" perfect scores then shut up about the "I only enjoyed it a little so it gets a 7" scores.  He's been doing that since he worked at Destructoid, where he gave games like Deadly Premonition and KillZone 3 perfect scores.

At some point, review scores became a thing unto themselves, where they were more about what the reviewer wanted than about informing the consumer.  Ah, the rise of "internet personalities."

Personally, I don't really have a lot of respect for that method.  I'm reading that review to find out about the game, warts and all, not because I want a completely subjective look at what strokes the reviewer's beard.  It's like I'm going in for an evaluation and get a note back from the grader that says, "you got several questions wrong but I really liked your answer for #83 so I'm giving you a 100!"  I would find that kind of lame because that score does not give me an accurate evaluation.

All of this, of course, is part of what makes meta-scores somewhat meaningless, as it combines scores with different scales, grading criteria, and philosophies. 

Beyond meta-scores, I don't think very much of scores in general.  If someone can't be bothered to read the actual review then they must not care very much to begin with.  The reason most people give so much attention to scores is because they're looking for validation, not information.  On top of that, as we've seen just recently, some fans aggressively try to create an atmosphere where reviewers can be intimidated into giving beloved franchises high scores, thus calling into question the honesty of the whole damn shebang.  

So, yeah, if people are so gung-ho about scores being personal enjoyment awards then the occassional reviewer pissing in their collective cornflakes is part of the package.



pokoko said:
KLAMarine said:

That's not terribly unreasonable.

Depends on what you're looking for in a review.

Supposedly, the true purpose is to inform the consumer.  This makes giving a perfect mark to a game with issues potentially deceptive.  If consumers think that a score is a summary of the review--flaws included--then they might be surprised when a writer adds on the score as some kind of "personal enjoyment meter" instead.

That's what Jim Sterling does, which makes it odd that some of the same people protesting his scores are championing perfect 10s.  It's one or the other, people.  If you want the totally subjective "I enjoyed the game THIS MUCH" perfect scores then shut up about the "I only enjoyed it a little so it gets a 7" scores.  He's been doing that since he worked at Destructoid, where he gave games like Deadly Premonition and KillZone 3 perfect scores.

At some point, review scores became a thing unto themselves, where they were more about what the reviewer wanted than about informing the consumer.  Ah, the rise of "internet personalities."

Personally, I don't really have a lot of respect for that method.  I'm reading that review to find out about the game, warts and all, not because I want a completely subjective look at what strokes the reviewer's beard.  It's like I'm going in for an evaluation and get a note back from the grader that says, "you got several questions wrong but I really liked your answer for #83 so I'm giving you a 100!"  I would find that kind of lame because that score does not give me an accurate evaluation.

All of this, of course, is part of what makes meta-scores somewhat meaningless, as it combines scores with different scales, grading criteria, and philosophies. 

Beyond meta-scores, I don't think very much of scores in general.  If someone can't be bothered to read the actual review then they must not care very much to begin with.  The reason most people them give so much attention to scores is because they're looking for validation, not information.  On top of that, as we've seen just recently, some fans aggressively try to create an atmosphere where reviewers can be intimidated into giving beloved franchises high scores, thus calling into question the honesty of the whole damn shebang.  

So, yeah, if people are so gung-ho about scores being personal enjoyment awards then the occassional reviewer pissing in their collective cornflakes is part of the package.

You totally nailed it. Very well put.



pokoko said:
KLAMarine said:

That's not terribly unreasonable.

Depends on what you're looking for in a review.

Supposedly, the true purpose is to inform the consumer.  This makes giving a perfect mark to a game with issues potentially deceptive.  If consumers think that a score is a summary of the review--flaws included--then they might be surprised when a writer adds on the score as some kind of "personal enjoyment meter" instead.

That's what Jim Sterling does, which makes it odd that some of the same people protesting his scores are championing perfect 10s.  It's one or the other, people.  If you want the totally subjective "I enjoyed the game THIS MUCH" perfect scores then shut up about the "I only enjoyed it a little so it gets a 7" scores.  He's been doing that since he worked at Destructoid, where he gave games like Deadly Premonition and KillZone 3 perfect scores.

At some point, review scores became a thing unto themselves, where they were more about what the reviewer wanted than about informing the consumer.  Ah, the rise of "internet personalities."

Personally, I don't really have a lot of respect for that method.  I'm reading that review to find out about the game, warts and all, not because I want a completely subjective look at what strokes the reviewer's beard.  It's like I'm going in for an evaluation and get a note back from the grader that says, "you got several questions wrong but I really liked your answer for #83 so I'm giving you a 100!"  I would find that kind of lame because that score does not give me an accurate evaluation.

All of this, of course, is part of what makes meta-scores somewhat meaningless, as it combines scores with different scales, grading criteria, and philosophies. 

Beyond meta-scores, I don't think very much of scores in general.  If someone can't be bothered to read the actual review then they must not care very much to begin with.  The reason most people them give so much attention to scores is because they're looking for validation, not information.  On top of that, as we've seen just recently, some fans aggressively try to create an atmosphere where reviewers can be intimidated into giving beloved franchises high scores, thus calling into question the honesty of the whole damn shebang.  

So, yeah, if people are so gung-ho about scores being personal enjoyment awards then the occassional reviewer pissing in their collective cornflakes is part of the package.

Let's face it: our enjoyment of games is subjective. It always is. You can conclude that some games are objectively terrible, but on the other end of the scale is no objectivity. I wasn't unhappy with Jim Sterlings review, I always said in the thread, that I thought his opinion acceptable (while I feel differently) and his points valid. Also his score was OK, a 7/10 is fine.

Secondly there is this perception of 10/10 as perfection. This really bugs me. This is like saying: we can use numbers from 1 to 10, but we don't use the ten. That's bull. The ten is a valid score. As no game is perfect it means the flaws don't destroy the enjoyment.

Overall I think the issue is similar to ME:A face-animations. While it might look strange in places, most people care more for other things.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

Framerate drops are apparent in most of the highest rated games of all time starting from the PS1/N64 era and on. Apparently plenty of people can't even tell when the framerate drops, so it never detracts from their experience. Personally, I find it impossible to believe that anyone completed BotW and only encountered framerate drops 2-3 times as people often state. The framerate drops, a lot. But if people don't notice it, it shouldn't be factored into their personal score.



KLAMarine said:
thismeintiel said:
If distracting frame rate drops aren't part of a score, even if fans say you can barely notice them (which means for the average gamer, it will be noticeable), then I guess games shouldn't be rated on any technical aspects at all. Shitty graphics? Who cares. Bugs galore? Who cares. Input lag? Phh. I had fun with the game, so I'm giving it a perfect (or damn near it) 10. Can't have it both ways, yet fans and reviewers try.

That's not terribly unreasonable.

I'm inclined to agree. Obviously bugs, glitches, framerate, etc. can detract from the fun, thus lowering the score. If the problems are there, but minor, it shouldn't ruin the perfect score if you feel the game deserves it. Entertainment value is the main proposition of a video game I think, so that should be factored above all. 

Otherwise, simple games would be highly favored over complex ones. Most puzzle games like Tetris or Puyo are perfect in their execution, but may not provide the same level of entertainment as a game like Zelda or Uncharted. More ambitious games will always be at a disadvantage because so much more can go wrong with them. So when a game is super amibitous and MOST of it goes right, I think that's gotta count for something.