Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Star Wars: Lightsaber Duels review from ign

This is so getting old, oh well if you haven't got them yet, get Boom Blox and de Blob instead, at least you won't be disappointed with those 2.



PLAYSTATION®3 is the future.....NOW.......B_E_L_I_E_V_E

Supporter of PlayStation and Nintendo

Around the Network

Thats It! Krome just made the list.

They need to stop, they are tarnishing Star Wars!!



"Let justice be done though the heavens fall." - Jim Garrison

"Ask not your horse, if ye should ride into battle" - myself

Khuutra said:
A 3.5 isn't the same thing as a seven. It's a middle-of-the-road review, just like a 5 from IGN.

A 3.5 isn't the same thing as a 5. It might be a seven but it depends if they start from 0 or 1.0 for their lowest possible score. If they do start at 0, then actually a 3.5 is exactly a seven. If they start at 1 instead, a 3.0 would be the equivalent of 5.0. So a 3.5 would be more like somewhere be between 6.0 and 7.0 if starting their rating at 1.0.

I'll come up with something better eventually...

I believe its best to rely on official Nintendo magazine / website sources than these multi platform sites. It seems like they're now holding all the same grudge against WII games. Not I disagree with everything they review because a lot of WII games are shovelware titles. Though some titles get low scores while its totally irrelevant.



PLAYSTATION®3 is the future.....NOW.......B_E_L_I_E_V_E

Supporter of PlayStation and Nintendo

coasterlove said:
Khuutra said:
A 3.5 isn't the same thing as a seven. It's a middle-of-the-road review, just like a 5 from IGN.

 

A 3.5 isn't the same thing as a 5. It might be a seven but it depends if they start from 0 or 1.0 for their lowest possible score. If they do start at 0, then actually a 3.5 is exactly a seven. If they start at 1 instead, a 3.0 would be the equivalent of 5.0. So a 3.5 would be more like somewhere be between 6.0 and 7.0 if starting their rating at 1.0.

 

Mathematical equivalency is not the same thing as trying to convey the same meaning with the same score. Assuming they start at 1, a 3 is perfectly average, and a 7 is about the mean/median score for IGN.



Around the Network
Khuutra said:
coasterlove said:
Khuutra said:
A 3.5 isn't the same thing as a seven. It's a middle-of-the-road review, just like a 5 from IGN.

A 3.5 isn't the same thing as a 5. It might be a seven but it depends if they start from 0 or 1.0 for their lowest possible score. If they do start at 0, then actually a 3.5 is exactly a seven. If they start at 1 instead, a 3.0 would be the equivalent of 5.0. So a 3.5 would be more like somewhere be between 6.0 and 7.0 if starting their rating at 1.0.

Mathematical equivalency is not the same thing as trying to convey the same meaning with the same score. Assuming they start at 1, a 3 is perfectly average, and a 7 is about the mean/median score for IGN.


A score of seven shouldn't be considered anything but a fairly positive score. If a 7 means that a game is just average, then it takes away the meaning of 8.0 and to some extent, even a 9.0. 5.o or at most 6.0 should mean average. Also, I doubt that a 7.0 is the mean or median score for IGN. I see fairly often games getting bad reviews from them.

I'll come up with something better eventually...

And this is why a number score is an inherently stupid idea.



I'm a mod, come to me if there's mod'n to do. 

Chrizum is the best thing to happen to the internet, Period.

Serves me right for challenging his sales predictions!

Bet with dsisister44: Red Steel 2 will sell 1 million within it's first 365 days of sales.

@stof you said it brother.

At any rate, a 3,5 star rating from gamepro usually means that the game isn't great but decent/good. Plus, i've been hearing that other sites are giving better scores as well.

The waggle fest that the reviewer mentioned really raised my doubts about this reviews realiability, since there have been tons of previews that stated that while it may be easier to just waggle your way through the game, the controls allow you to smoothly and with precision deal out combos.

Seems to me that the reviewer didn't really try to do anything with the game. And this is starting to become standard procedure for the IGN staff.



Huh. Who would've thought that beggining anew in my real life would coincide with starting anew on vgchartz?

Any day now, the dollar will be worth less than 2 zloty......any day now.....and my life savings will be in total jepordy ;(.

coasterlove said:
Khuutra said:
coasterlove said:
Khuutra said:
A 3.5 isn't the same thing as a seven. It's a middle-of-the-road review, just like a 5 from IGN.

 

A 3.5 isn't the same thing as a 5. It might be a seven but it depends if they start from 0 or 1.0 for their lowest possible score. If they do start at 0, then actually a 3.5 is exactly a seven. If they start at 1 instead, a 3.0 would be the equivalent of 5.0. So a 3.5 would be more like somewhere be between 6.0 and 7.0 if starting their rating at 1.0.

 

Mathematical equivalency is not the same thing as trying to convey the same meaning with the same score. Assuming they start at 1, a 3 is perfectly average, and a 7 is about the mean/median score for IGN.


 

A score of seven shouldn't be considered anything but a fairly positive score. If a 7 means that a game is just average, then it takes away the meaning of 8.0 and to some extent, even a 9.0. 5.o or at most 6.0 should mean average. Also, I doubt that a 7.0 is the mean or median score for IGN. I see fairly often games getting bad reviews from them.

 

IGN's average score, according to gamestats (which is owned by IGN), is 6.9.

I agree that numbered scores are meaningless.



Bet if this game got an eight from IGN, it'd be no problem with their scoring.

But when a game gets low, we have to cry foul on IGN's scoring methodology.

I would also venture to assume if the overall score is higher than the average score of the five categories, this thread wouldn't exist.

I actually enjoy that it isn't all cut and clean, because certain categories should hold more weight depending on the game in different reviews. If we were to use the same scale across all games and platforms, by default, wouldn't every PS360 game win in presentation, graphics, and sound? If we're going to be fair, and average, we need to be average across the board, and not judge Wii graphics by Wii merits, but by overall merits. If this were the case, and it went on average, Wii games would all have horrible scores, but (thankfully) it's not, every game on every console has some form of discretion so that games don't get reviewed based on other merits out of it's control.

I say all that to say, the whole not adding up to an average thing makes the most sense, as every game has a fair shot of getting a good score, no matter what system, or game-type it is. This game just happens to not be fun and have lasting appeal according to the review, and for the gametype that it is, it should have both. >_>