By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
ultima on 15 December 2010
Edit Thread
CGI-Quality said:
ultima said:
CGI-Quality said:
ultima said:

@ everyone who claims the score's lower because of expectations: are you telling me the reviewers don't have an absolute scale? How about Halo 3? That game was hyped to death, yet it still received a 94. If what you say is true, then this system is redundant. The whole point of scores is to give a person a quick idea on how a certain game stacks up against a different game.

So you're telling me reviewers thought it was a minus that the game wasn't photo-realistic?

 

But all of the promotional CGIs for Halo 3 looked amazing and had little to no resemblance to the in-game graphics. So, unless you're telling me graphics were supposed to be the main selling points of GT5, I still see a problem.

wn in many aspects by the game (mainly damage and graphics), but I am still able to see that the game deserves higher than 84 if you compare it to Forza 3.

 

And that, in my opinion is a huge problem. How am I supposed to know which is more worthy of my money if the comparison of the aggregate review score is not consistent with the comparison in the quality of each game. I really think (or maybe hope?) this is not the case.

Point A: Yes. They felt the graphics undelivered relative to hype, versus what was on the screen.

Point B: Again, yes. Graphics WAS one of GT5's selling points (which is pretty obvious since most of the hype boiled down to trailers and screenshots).

Point C: Completely your opinion. The 84 meta isn't what bothers most, but the words spoken amongst a review, which the final number, seemingly, fails to reflect.

Last point: You're right, the reviews are inconsistent, but not for the reasons you've stated. Halo 3 was judged based on the final product and not much else. GT5 was based partially on the final product and partially on hype, which is why people have cried foul. I don't agree with the inconsistencies either, but I also realize that GT5 launched in a new day.

Next time, the hype from Sony should be cornered a bit, but reviewers also need to review what's in front of them (especially if it's considered the best of it's genre) and not what was promised.

Point A: I can't blame them for being disappointed with the graphics; so was I. However, that shouldn't be held against the game. Measuring stick should be other games currently in the market, not what the game promised. By this line of thinking what would justify a perfect score in the graphics category? If meeting what was promised is all it takes then every game could have "perfect" graphics by not promising much.

Point B: I don't quite understand what you mean here by "most of hype boiled down to trailers and screenshots." Aren't those things all one has before a game actually is released? And from the screenshots I've seen (don't remember any trailers besides E3 gameplay) the game did deliver, as the graphics in photo mode are just as good as that.

Point C: I think this is a little more than an opinion. What is the entire purpose of the score system? Isn't it to give a rough idea on how games compare to each other? So if FM3 and GT5 are both racing sims, a higher score for FM3 should, ideally, mean that FM3 is the better racing sim, which I believe is not true.

Last point: so why didn't hype play a role in the rating process of Halo 3, while it did for GT5?