By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
r505Matt on 05 March 2010
Edit Thread
Killergran said:
Reasonable said:

Of course, even with guidelines it's open to interpretation, but for me to be a 5 or less a game has to have actual technical plus gameplay issues.

For a game that seems on the evidence to be as well coded, etc. as FFXIII is to get a 5 is very puzzling to me.  I guess it depends how you bring technical competence into the mix (as a programmer of old it's important for me).

For me if the game works without bugs is technically competent, etc. then it's a 5.  if it's decent for it's genre it's a 7.  5 is very low for a title as polished as FFXIII and that's what I'm surprised by as for me it means that - in the view of this site - the game has serious gameplay issues.

Mind you, I'm not saying it DOES have such issues, merely that's the reading I'd take from the EDGE review and score.

 

I'm not saying it has issues either. But I cannot in any way agree with you that a game needs to have technical issues to get a 5 or below. In my ears, that just sounds like madness. A game could have technical issues up over it's ears and still get a 9 or 10, or it could have no technical issues at all and recieve a 1. I'm not saying technical issues should not, or does not, affect the score. I'm saying that no score should ever imply or mean a game has them.

And EDGE works differently from how you do, obviously. For them, 5 really means a game that is decent for its genre. But this point has been debated for so long I feel almost silly for bringing it up.

This.

Why should a game automatically get a 5 if there are no technical problems? That's like saying 50% of the score is weighted on technical aspects of the game. Then I guess actual quality of visuals (graphics), gameplay, fun factor/entertainment level, value, etc. are only worth 50% combined. That is silly.

Any grading system needs to be a shifting system. As Killergran said, a game can be riddled with bugs and still be a 9 or 10. What matters is if those bugs ruins the gaming experience and/or immersion. But to place 1/2 of the grading weight on that tehcnical aspect (or some people are suggesting a game with no bugs = a 7) is just ridiculous.

The EDGE review is very logical; what he states makes a lot of sense. I won't know until I play it myself, but I HATE a slow progression into the true battle system. I'm now very glad I'm just borrowing this from my sister instead of buying it. I'm a big Final Fantasy fan, but it's not like I think SE can do no wrong.