JazzB1987 said:
Kane1389 said:
Exactly, and a video game isnt bound by any objective criteria like a school exam is, so you proved my own point here.
|
It is
It is not bound to a check list like school exams tho.
Was "X" answered and is it correct? if yes 10 points if not 0 points. if half correct 5 points.
I agree that this is not how games and their reviews work
BUT
What they do is analyze what the product is supposed to do/offer and then compare to what was delivered. Thats completely objective.
If a racing game is supposed to have 30FPS and then the game drops to 22 and has issues with controls (which is obviously a flaw) it cannot be perfect. Its obvious that the game tried to be a 30FPS game if 80% of the time the framerate is 30FPS. Dontpunish the game for not being 60FPS because it never tried to be that but you can punish it for failing at being a 30FPS game.
30fps is not an objctive criteria either, just an industry standard. If we lived in a world with less powerfull GPUs, the standards might have benn 20fps or 15,so the framerate isnt objective by any means
It would be more logical to not even try to implement something at all than doing it BAD. So a Mario Kart 8 that never even tried to implement the battle mode at all would theoretically deserve a better score than the Mario Kart 8 we got with a battle mode that is half-assed and nonsensical because the courses are way to large for what they are supposed to be. Devs might play it save by offering less complicated things then and less content because they might fear they could get worse score for offering more "not enough polished" stuff. BUT that can be solved with a "value score" (see below).
So by your logic a game where you lead a small black dot from a poin A to point B in and 10 second loop (at ROCK STEADY 60fps!!) would deserve a better score than MK and TLoU because its mundane mechanics are more polished?
If a game tries something it cannot accomplish or if the execution is bad then it failed at being a perfect product. You base the 10/10 on what it could have been and reduce the score until you reach the product you got in the end. That is the only plausible and fair way to judge and rate a product. (on its own tho!) Everything else is arbitrary.
Maximum score (10/10) doesnt equal a perfect product. Even on a school test, you can get an A+ (an equal to 10/10 review score) and dont have 100% of all the points.Lots of reviews and reviewers mention and reflect that. This is a significant hole in your logic right here.
The problem is if we only have the individual score that does not compare the thing to another product how does one know if a product is better than another one? Thats why we need several scores not only 1.
The "individual" score I just described above.
A value score that analyzes the offered content:price ratio (value).
Value is, once again, subjctive. So how are they supposed to ''analyze'' that?
And one that takes both into account and gives us a final score. There is still a problem here tho.
It would be better to have final scores for multiplayer and singleplayer (because not everyone cares about MP and not everyone about SP) having only a final score distorts the review. So we need a SP and MP score that review multiplayer content and singleplayer content independently.
(every type of score mentioned here should still be visible in the final review tho. Like today we have VISUALS, SOUNDS, STORY, REPLAY VALUE)
Of those aspects, only replay value and visuals can be rated objectively (technical side of visuals that is)
|
