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

thismeintiel said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying is that certain games, by virtue of their technical prowess, should have a score ceiling and a score floor?

A technical marvel like Uncharted can't get a score below 6 and a game like Breath of the Wild, with technical hiccups, can't get a score above 9? That's fine for you, but a lot of fans and critics don't think that way. Resolution, lighting, physics, and draw distance might just be a small part of the equation for them.

I know, for me, a game is much, much more than the sum of its technical specs.

Good for you.  However, without those be taken into account, the rating means jackshit in the end.  And really, no one has the right to get mad over them, because then the game is only being reviewed on fun factor alone, which is 100% subjective.  If you get mad over a "fun score" then you are just being a whiner.  But, hey, if something like Deadly Premonition is the same fun factor as BOTW for some reviewers, so both get a 9 or 10, then by all means I will now accept them to be the same quality of game.

"Fun" is what a game is supposed to be though, I don't care if uncharted 4 was a technical masterpiece, if the game design sucked then it should get a 4/10.  There is no exceptions to poor game design.  Remember a review doesn't start at 10 and go down, it starts at 0 and goes up.  But unlike a test, a game can earn points in anyway a reviewer sees fit.  A 10 doesn't mean a flawless game, it just means that whatever flaws the game has is over shadowed by whatever the game does right.  



Something...Something...Games...Something

Around the Network
thismeintiel said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying is that certain games, by virtue of their technical prowess, should have a score ceiling and a score floor?

A technical marvel like Uncharted can't get a score below 6 and a game like Breath of the Wild, with technical hiccups, can't get a score above 9? That's fine for you, but a lot of fans and critics don't think that way. Resolution, lighting, physics, and draw distance might just be a small part of the equation for them.

I know, for me, a game is much, much more than the sum of its technical specs.

Good for you.  However, without those be taken into account, the rating means jackshit in the end.  And really, no one has the right to get mad over them, because then the game is only being reviewed on fun factor alone, which is 100% subjective.  If you get mad over a "fun score" then you are just being a whiner.  But, hey, if something like Deadly Premonition is the same fun factor as BOTW for some reviewers, so both get a 9 or 10, then by all means I will now accept them to be the same quality of game.

Edit: this came off as a little dismissive, which wasn't my intention. Obviously we disagree but I respect our difference of opinion. If technical specs are supremely important to you I have no business telling you otherwise.



Mnementh said:

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.

Our enjoyment of a game might be subjective but it's generally grounded by objective parameters.  Controls, camera functionality, frame-rate--there are any number of criteria that can be rated and compared to other games.  When I look at a review, I want the technical side to be considered as well because I'm the only one who can decide what does and does not detract from my experience.  The reviewer saying, "oh, but I don't care about X, I only care about Y," makes the article about the reviewer as much as it is about the game.  

That's why many people, when they read a review of something, they're looking for as much objective information as possible, so they can apply it to their own list of likes and dislikes.  Reviews, in my opinion, should describe both sides of the coin.  They aren't simply an editorial or a tech analysis, they're a reflection of both.

Personally, if I were writing a review, I would want to incorporate the objective and the subjective in my score.  If they both register a "10" then I'll give the game a 10.  If one or both fail to hit that mark then I'm not going to award a perfect score.  That's my philosophy, because otherwise I'd feel like I'm trying to sweep the negatives under the carpet, which I see as a disservice to the reader.

If anyone likes a score that puts the writer front and center, that's totally fine, too, though I think it's hilarious that they're all mixed up together in one "meta-score".  8 Oranges + 9 Apples = 8.5 Pineapples.  

Veknoid_Outcast said:

I think there's room for both methods. When I review a game I describe its mechanics, modes, and gameplay, but I also assign pros and cons to those features based on my subjective priorities.

Ideally, consumers will find a group of reviewers among the larger pool that reflect their own priorities. Following that group would be a lot more helpful than staring at some context-less aggregate score on Metacritic.

That's basically my thoughts on the matter.  I don't care at all for the kind of reviewing Jim Sterling does but I'm not going to claim that his style shouldn't exist.  All I need to do is look elsewhere.  It's a big internet.  



thismeintiel said:
KLAMarine said:

If you want to open the floor to this level of speculation, the possibility that reviewers give bad reviews out for the attention or publicity should also be considered. The fact that game publishers buy ad space on game review sites is itself cause for concern. It's all suspect at that point.

Of course it should be considered, as it is also a fact.  Most notably when decent games get 4's or lower, which is below average.  I believe someone gave UC4 a 4, which is completely ridiculous.  Sure, the game may be average to you, gameplay-wise, but you can't ignore its graphical/technical achievements.  IMO, the lowest that game should get is a 6, or above average.  Unfortuanely, though, a 4 for a huge AAA title is guaranteed traffic to your site from fans who are going to voice their anger/disapproval for the score.

So how does one distinguish between honest reviews and reviews with ulterior motives?

thismeintiel said:

And it is somewhat concerning for gaming companies to advertise on gaming sites, as they may lead to skewed reviews.  However, I don't think that is too much of a concern.  Even if the site gives your game a lower score than you think it should have gotten, crying about it will only give you bad press, which could affect sales.  It also stands to reason that the vast majority of site goers are going to be gamers, so you are going to want to advertise on them, anyway, to reach the largest number of gamers.  Scores be damned.  And not all of those gamers go off of reviews.  Or think 6s or 7s make a game unbuyable.

No need to cry about it... Just hold off on advertising on an offending review site next time another game is ready for marketing. That's a possibility but I'm not a fan of wild speculation so I don't give this sort of thing too much thought.

I just avoid review sites altogether and after the disappointment that GTA 5 was, they have miniscule sway in my purchasing decisions.





Around the Network
Wyrdness said:

Good on Jim.



KLAMarine said:
thismeintiel said:

Of course it should be considered, as it is also a fact.  Most notably when decent games get 4's or lower, which is below average.  I believe someone gave UC4 a 4, which is completely ridiculous.  Sure, the game may be average to you, gameplay-wise, but you can't ignore its graphical/technical achievements.  IMO, the lowest that game should get is a 6, or above average.  Unfortuanely, though, a 4 for a huge AAA title is guaranteed traffic to your site from fans who are going to voice their anger/disapproval for the score.

So how does one distinguish between honest reviews and reviews with ulterior motives?

There really is no 100% way.  Just find certain people you trust, I guess.  For me, I do like Angry Joe.  I don't always agree with him on his reviews or scores, but I trust him to have honest reviews.  It's also nice that he has stuck with the older review scale this whole time, where many had an inflated one (where 7 was average) last gen and then are switching back somewhat this gen.  As far as clickbait reviews go, unless you see from vids and/or let's plays that the game is a broken mess, and it at least looks competent, don't ever trust 4 or below.  I think most games do at least enough to warrant a 5, or average.

Sadly, I'm never going to trust another Zelda review from most, if not all, places.  Not when it is evident a large chunk of the fanbase will lose their collective shit if the review is less than a 9.



thismeintiel said:
KLAMarine said:

So how does one distinguish between honest reviews and reviews with ulterior motives?

There really is no 100% way.  Just find certain people you trust, I guess.  For me, I do like Angry Joe.  I don't always agree with him on his reviews or scores, but I trust him to have honest reviews.  It's also nice that he has stuck with the older review scale this whole time, where many had an inflated one (where 7 was average) last gen and then are switching back somewhat this gen.  As far as clickbait reviews go, unless you see from vids and/or let's plays that the game is a broken mess, and it at least looks competent, don't ever trust 4 or below.  I think most games do at least enough to warrant a 5, or average.

Sadly, I'm never going to trust another Zelda review from most, if not all, places.  Not when it is evident a large chunk of the fanbase will lose their collective shit if the review is less than a 9.

A large chunk? Who's counting?



KLAMarine said:
thismeintiel said:

There really is no 100% way.  Just find certain people you trust, I guess.  For me, I do like Angry Joe.  I don't always agree with him on his reviews or scores, but I trust him to have honest reviews.  It's also nice that he has stuck with the older review scale this whole time, where many had an inflated one (where 7 was average) last gen and then are switching back somewhat this gen.  As far as clickbait reviews go, unless you see from vids and/or let's plays that the game is a broken mess, and it at least looks competent, don't ever trust 4 or below.  I think most games do at least enough to warrant a 5, or average.

Sadly, I'm never going to trust another Zelda review from most, if not all, places.  Not when it is evident a large chunk of the fanbase will lose their collective shit if the review is less than a 9.

A large chunk?

Yes, a large chunk.  Not a majority, mind you, but it's quite large.  Some of the hateful comments had over 500 thumbs up the last time I saw.  He's since deleted them.  I'm sure there were comments with higher counts.  Then, there are those on other sites bashing the guys review.  It's even sadder seeing some of the more sane Nintendo fans on here basically saying it was a clickbait review or "what did he expect."  And the only reason given is that THEY liked the new breakable weapons, inventory management, and stanima bar (though, I believe they would have loved it if it was exactly like the classic Link, so it doesn't really matter), as if there is no validity in Jim's opinions and he should just shut up.  So, let's just say it's MUCH larger than it should be.  Those people who were offended should have been mocked or ridiculed into obsurity, not backed up by "legitimate"  Nintendo fans making excuses for them.

And let's just admit the facts.  There has never been a fanbase, that I know of, go so freaking nuts over a 7/10.  While it is never acceptable, at least reviews people have gone nuts over are 5 or below for something many see as good.  It was just a pathetic display.  



How do you guys feel about the game being labelled as sexist, misogynistic and transphobic?