padib said:
pezus said:
Michael-5 said:
pezus said:
Michael-5 said:
padib said:
Michael-5 said:
15 100% -39(most common score)
0 - 99% -1
2 98% -9
2 97% -3 - median
1 96% -9
7 95% - median -18
1 94% -2
3 93% -3
0 92% -3
0 91% -2
16 90% (most common score) -14
0 89% -1
3 80% -1
Basically those 80%'s hurt the game, and even though there are a lot of 100%'s, there are also a lot of 90%'s, and a good number of 95%. Score makes sense.
Compare this to uncharted 2 in bold. Keep in mind Uncharted 2 has twice as many reviews, so the number of x% should be double.
Uncharted 2 had a lot more scores at 100%, and the median is a full 2% higher. Ontop of that it only has 1 80% score
Guess Uncharted 2 made a bigger impact on gaming, where Uncharted 3 simply prefected Uncharted 2.
|
Those are interesting numbers Micheal-5. It's still a little early (the game hasn't come out yet), so let's wait until the game launches, when we've all played it, so we can more properly criticize IGN on its review. Nonetheless, it's clear to me that they state issues in the game yet fail to acknowledge them in the pointing scheme, whether due to a poorly made scheme, or due to bias. One way or another the score doesn't give a good representation of their review, and that's a bad thing. Between this and the Eurogamer one I prefer the Eurogamer one even if that one has its own issues. Other than that as you said GT seem to provide sensical numbers in line with their reviews.
|
Typically what happens is high reviews come in first, the other reviews come in and drop the metascore a bit. Uncharted 2 started life at 98% after all, and I've noticed this happening for many big franchise deputes like Gears of War, Forza, Halo, InFamous, Killzone, etc.
My arguement about UC3's score on IGN is that IGN has a stupid 20 point system now, and they are giving 10/10 out way too frequently/easily. Games are getting better, but we also expect more from games, scores should no be inflating like they have in the last 20 years, and IGN seems to be the worst.
|
As I showed you earlier, they really aren't.
|
You showed me past gens, IGN gave a lot of games score between 9.5-9.8/10. You only supported my claim of IGN giving 10/10's out far too easily this gen, didn't show me anything.
Their old system was superrior.
|
Just because you can't accept that a 10 does not mean it's a perfect game. Why do you never comment on sites that rate on a 5 point scale or on a 10 point scale?
|
This is a good point. It seems to me that the problem Micheal and I, as well as melbye and some others, are having is that, because we've (well at least I have) been following the news for many years now, our stigma is that when IGN gives a 10 that's a huge deal and it's usually 1 per generation, and a testament to a game that breaks the mold in all ways possible, and sets a standard within the generation and beyond. I guess at this point the word needs to be out that the scheme changed and that the score is rounded up by 5% on 100. When a game gets 100 on IGN now, it's to be taken with a grain of salt, not as heralded as it was before. Good or bad thing? It doesn't matter, but for sure ppl need to be aware of it otherwise it will just cause more controversy.
P.S Happy Halloween guys ;)
|
That's my point exactly. I wouldn't mind UC3 getting 10/10 if it was the only game this gen that got it, but IGN has gotten ridiculous these days.
As for not commenting on other sites that use a 5 or 10 point system. For the longest time I've trusted Gametrailers and IGN reviews. I don't care for metascore, I usually just trust IGN and GT, but IGN has started handing out high scores and 10s too frequently now days. This is why IGN specifically giving another 10/10 bothers me.
Nothing against UC3 itself, I brought up MP because that to me is a pretty major flaw to the experience, but it seems most people on this site like UC3, so I guess it can't be all that bad. Still, IGN can't give so many 10/10's, I've lost a lot of respect for them this gen.
