By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Final Fantasy XIII-2 gets 5.4 on Gamrreview - how is that possible?

Tagged games:

theprof00 on 05 February 2012
Shinobi-san said:
arcelonious said:

I think that the written portion of the review is ok, although it's pretty obvious how much the reviewer hated XIII and wanted to hate XIII-2. Regardless, the problem is how the reviewer adheres (or does not adhere) to their review system methodology.
For example, under gamrReview's methodology, a score between 5-5.9 is:

"Mediocre. These games are bland and ordinary. They barely make adequate status, and will likely not be particularly enjoyable if at all. Note that we do not expect the “average” game to fall into this range. Ideally most people are making games that are at least good, and the majority of games do not need to be scored in this range or below."

If the review score was in the 7 (or hell, even the 6 range), then it would match the methodology given by gamrReview, but a 5.4 just doesn't seem to match the game, especially considering that many have enjoyed it thus far.

Beyond the score, it's also important to note that while reviews are opinions, they are supposed to reflect how the reviewer believes other gamers would recieve a particular game, which is evident in the methodology (in the methodology, terms like "most people" are used).  Thus, even if the reviewer hates a particular game, they have to review a game based on how he or she perceives others would recieve it.  Generability is one of the major factors that separate a well-written review from a mere opinion piece, and if you can't write a review under that notion, then you really shouldn't be writing an official review.

I have no problem with a heavily-biased individual reviewing a game that he or she hates, as long as that reviewer abides by the methodology given by their review system.  When reviewers don't follow their site's own methodology, it's hard to take those reviewers seriously.

 

That hit the nail on the head for me. I dont have an issue with the review or even the score, but its the meaning that the VGChartz review metric gives to the score, which has most people thinking WTF.

5.0-5.9 – Mediocre. These games are bland and ordinary. They barely make adequate status, and will likely not be particularly enjoyable if at all. Note that we do not expect the “average” game to fall into this range. Ideally most people are making games that are at least good, and the majority of games do not need to be scored in this range or below.

Sorry to highlight the exact same line as you arcelonious but its such an important point. Based on the review id say this is an average game, the reviewer might have used a lot of harsh words, but its stil reads as average with redeeming factors. Not to forget that this is in fact a JRPG with a dedicated fanbase, it is also a sequel to quite a popular game. So this needs to be noted as well.

I would say that the review fits perfectly in the above score range...

6.0-6.9 – Decent. These games are usually not particularly memorable, and only have a couple of redeeming features that keep them from being truly mediocre. Some people may enjoy them, but they don’t excel in any way.

Most important point there is that some people may enjoy them (most probably the few million people that like ff13. Based on the score and the explanation the runa gave the game, he is basically saying no1 should be buying this game, not even ff13 fans, let alone ff fans. Which cant be right.

You cant review a game in complete isolation of external factors and you definately need to adhere to the review metric outlined by the site. Which i think is the issue here. And this is what people mean by uniformity...at the very least mark to the same metric.

This is perfect. Thank you



Around the Network
Chroniczaaa on 05 February 2012

So many XIII fanboys here are butthurt i see.
Man I'm glad I never planned on buying this, XIII was just too much as it was.


This post has been moderated ~ Barozi



"Defeating a sandwich, only makes it tastier." - Virginia

ishiki on 05 February 2012
hatmoza said:
self proclaimed "bearded gamer's" FF XIII review was hella more controversial than this. He was actually bribed with an early copy review if he promised to give FF XIII at least a 9 :P . Just like Squeenix did with Dues Ex.


Runa is a girl? I think not. But it would actually answer a lot of question mark posts made by him.


I don't see how you can think that's the case when it actually has  a 9 average metacritc. That would mean square-enix bribed everyone for a game that sold 2 million copies.

right.

I don't care to argue, about this review. Hatmoza, needs to make better arguements, generally everywhere.



Zlejedi on 05 February 2012
Michelasso said:
Rainbird said:
mantlepiecek said:
I think it's unfair that the person who hated FF XIII so much was asked to review its sequel.

How so? He's a fan of the series in general, and Square promised that many of the things wrong with FFXIII would be fixed in the sequel. It also seems that for the first five hours or so, Square had in fact got it right and then everything went south.

The score seems a little harsh from where I'm sitting, but I don't think it seems unjustified.

The important thing to note is the little text below the score that says "Mediocre". FFXIII-2 is not a terrible game, it's simply average, with the high points being balanced out by the low points, going by the review.

I think the reviewer would be better working in a factory. It is a fact now: whatever SE will do with the Final Fantasy games there will always be some retarded bashing it for a reason or another. FF XIII-2 adds many elements that were missing in FF XIII and still I read reviews putting it down for those same elements. This is an extract of few points I have read around:

 

  • FF XIII is missing the cities!!
  • Come on FF XIII-2 towns are so 20 years old.
  • FF XIII is too linear!
  • FF XIII-2 story is disrupted (sure it is. You can jump from a place/time to another now, you moron!)
  • There are too many cutscenes in FF XIII
  • There are not enough cutscenes in FF XIII-2
  • FF XIII-2 music is best ever (IGN)
  • FF XIII-2 music makes me throw out (some other jerk)
  • FF XIII-2 story doesn't really end (but that doesn't seem to be an issue with Assassin's creed)
  • FF XIII-2 has long loading times (yeah. Streaming out directly from the BR disc. Skyrim, which has a mandatory full install is awful on that and many other sides, and it still gets above 90/100 in this very same site).
Seriously, FF reviews are becoming the joke of the videogame industry. I think the fairest FF XIII-2 review has been the one from IGN (as it often happens). It's an 8/10, with many pros and some cons. At least it doesn't go down to 1 fps, then freezing the PS3 like Skyrim does!!

 


Hating on SE and FF has been the fashion of this generation ;)



PROUD MEMBER OF THE PSP RPG FAN CLUB

brendude13 on 05 February 2012
oniyide said:
brendude13 said:
oniyide said:
Its funny but no one is who defending 13-2 is giving their reasons why its a good game

Interesting plot, great pacing, well scripted cutscenes, complete freedom in a very beautiful world, excellent music, fantastic battle system, addictive collecting and levelling system, beautiful graphics.

All based on the first 5 hours of the game.

Good enough for you? I could write a page long review if you want, or you could just read the ones other people have posted.

EDIT: Ha. Seemed like another 5 people beat me to it. Well that backfired didn't it?

No it didnt, I wanted to find out what people actually thought instead of just bashing this guy because they are feeling hurt. The funny thing is your the only one who actually gave their opinion. The others just linked me to reviews that favored their taste, real original.

Fair enough, sorry about that. People aren't really expected to write out reasons why they like the game, I can see why they just said they disagree with the review score and left it at that.

Reviews do generally give you an idea about why people like the game, it gives you an idea of why they like the game without having to write a long winded response. One user actually linked the review he wrote, ryuzaki his name is I think.



Around the Network
Areym on 05 February 2012
brendude13 said:
Wagram said:

My apologies to Runa, I did not take the time to delve into his profile.

Anyways if scores are to stay I think that 4 or 5 people need to review it and accumulate an average. That way lets readers know how many of the reviewers enjoyed it, and who didn't. It is possible Runa maybe growing out of JRPGs. Xenoblade is farrrrrrrrrrr worse than XIII-2 with the inconsistency in difficulty (more-so that it is just so damn easy), and grinding. I have about a 90 hour save file, and about 65-70 hours of that is me running around doing about 275 mindless head numbing fetch quests, and revealing 100% of a gigantic map that has nothing else to offer once you've done the mindless fetch/kill quests.

I know that someone on GamrConnect will review the game well, but there will be no consistency. So please Bret. Ask your team to eliminate scores, and adopt a system similar to Kotakus, or have multiple reviewers rate the same game.

This is my thought exactly, especially when he praised Skyrim for its plot (I believe it was him anyway).

What irritates me most when it comes to reviews of FFXIII/-2, is that it's score is lowered far more than any other game for the same flaw. If Skyrim has poor voice acting, 0.1 is docked from its overall score, if FFXIII/-2 has poor voicing (which I believe it doesn't), a whole point is docked from the score. If Skyrim has a very short and bland main story and the rest of your playtime is made up of fetch quests and grinding, 0.2 is docked from the overall score, if Final Fantasy XIII/-2 has a very short and bland main story and the rest of your playtime is made up of fetch quests and grinding (which once again, I don't think it is), a whole 2 points are docked from the score.

This isn't directed at Runa, I haven't seen a review of Skyrim from him and I don't know how many points he docked from its overall score and for what reasons, it's aimed at reviewers in general.

I agree on this post. Skyrim got he hype train and was giving a 9.7 ( i think thats the score here on VGC) and that game was that not that good. In fact, in my honest opinion, it has all the same problems that FFXIII-2 appears to have. Bland story, boring characters, unrewarding combat and heavily relies on inflating its play time with side quests/exploration.

Still, Runa did the review and I believe it was well made. It's a good review. Is it just? That's the question at hand. At the end of the day, it's just his opinion and it doesnt even reflect  on all of the reviewers in VGC...I think.



"Trick shot? The trick is NOT to get shot." - Lucian

oniyide on 05 February 2012
brendude13 said:
oniyide said:
brendude13 said:
oniyide said:
Its funny but no one is who defending 13-2 is giving their reasons why its a good game

Interesting plot, great pacing, well scripted cutscenes, complete freedom in a very beautiful world, excellent music, fantastic battle system, addictive collecting and levelling system, beautiful graphics.

All based on the first 5 hours of the game.

Good enough for you? I could write a page long review if you want, or you could just read the ones other people have posted.

EDIT: Ha. Seemed like another 5 people beat me to it. Well that backfired didn't it?

No it didnt, I wanted to find out what people actually thought instead of just bashing this guy because they are feeling hurt. The funny thing is your the only one who actually gave their opinion. The others just linked me to reviews that favored their taste, real original.

Fair enough, sorry about that. People aren't really expected to write out reasons why they like the game, I can see why they just said they disagree with the review score and left it at that.

Reviews do generally give you an idea about why people like the game, it gives you an idea of why they like the game without having to write a long winded response. One user actually linked the review he wrote, ryuzaki his name is I think.

Im not really asking for a review perse, but if someone going to go off on the reveiwer and say he is wrong, at the very least have the cajones to say what you thought was wrong and say why you would think he is wrong. Doesnt take a whole page for that.



Khuutra on 05 February 2012
theprof00 said:
Khuutra said:

No reviewer is obligated to agree with other reviewers.

When you make the decision to be different you must accept that your contributions no longer fall within the old metric. EDGE reviews 1-10. Theya re different, yet they demand that their metric be cut and pasted into the norm. That's not how you do it. You stand alone, and fly the banner, and let others flock to you. What they do now is play the attention card. If we do that, then we need to get all our reviewers on the same page and understand that we do not belong on metacritic. If we want to join EDGE's rubric, then that's fine. But we don't belong in the group with others. It's simple as that.


Nonsense. There is no monolithic review culture except that perpetuated by reviewers. THere is no club to opt in or out of. Metacritic is an aggregate that people gravitate to; it is not a standard by which reviewers measure themselves. Neither EDGE nor anyone else demand to be "cut and pasted into the norm".



teigaga on 05 February 2012
Shinobi-san said:
arcelonious said:

I think that the written portion of the review is ok, although it's pretty obvious how much the reviewer hated XIII and wanted to hate XIII-2. Regardless, the problem is how the reviewer adheres (or does not adhere) to their review system methodology.
For example, under gamrReview's methodology, a score between 5-5.9 is:

"Mediocre. These games are bland and ordinary. They barely make adequate status, and will likely not be particularly enjoyable if at all. Note that we do not expect the “average” game to fall into this range. Ideally most people are making games that are at least good, and the majority of games do not need to be scored in this range or below."

If the review score was in the 7 (or hell, even the 6 range), then it would match the methodology given by gamrReview, but a 5.4 just doesn't seem to match the game, especially considering that many have enjoyed it thus far.

Beyond the score, it's also important to note that while reviews are opinions, they are supposed to reflect how the reviewer believes other gamers would recieve a particular game, which is evident in the methodology (in the methodology, terms like "most people" are used).  Thus, even if the reviewer hates a particular game, they have to review a game based on how he or she perceives others would recieve it.  Generability is one of the major factors that separate a well-written review from a mere opinion piece, and if you can't write a review under that notion, then you really shouldn't be writing an official review.

I have no problem with a heavily-biased individual reviewing a game that he or she hates, as long as that reviewer abides by the methodology given by their review system.  When reviewers don't follow their site's own methodology, it's hard to take those reviewers seriously.

 

That hit the nail on the head for me. I dont have an issue with the review or even the score, but its the meaning that the VGChartz review metric gives to the score, which has most people thinking WTF.

5.0-5.9 – Mediocre. These games are bland and ordinary. They barely make adequate status, and will likely not be particularly enjoyable if at all. Note that we do not expect the “average” game to fall into this range. Ideally most people are making games that are at least good, and the majority of games do not need to be scored in this range or below.

Sorry to highlight the exact same line as you arcelonious but its such an important point. Based on the review id say this is an average game, the reviewer might have used a lot of harsh words, but its stil reads as average with redeeming factors. Not to forget that this is in fact a JRPG with a dedicated fanbase, it is also a sequel to quite a popular game. So this needs to be noted as well.

I would say that the review fits perfectly in the above score range...

6.0-6.9 – Decent. These games are usually not particularly memorable, and only have a couple of redeeming features that keep them from being truly mediocre. Some people may enjoy them, but they don’t excel in any way.

Most important point there is that some people may enjoy them (most probably the few million people that like ff13. Based on the score and the explanation the runa gave the game, he is basically saying no1 should be buying this game, not even ff13 fans, let alone ff fans. Which cant be right.

You cant review a game in complete isolation of external factors and you definately need to adhere to the review metric outlined by the site. Which i think is the issue here. And this is what people mean by uniformity...at the very least mark to the same metric.

I Agree that the tone of the review leans closer towards the 6.0-6.9 according to the sites metric description. But i think your interpretation of the portion which reads " Some people may enjoy them"  is too literal. I would assume that judgement to be made on the merits of the game itself/ its redeeming factors  and not on series popularity or similar external factors. Otherwise that would essentially equate to popular titles never scoring below a 6 because the existing fan base may find enjoy in it,  in which case that description should be removed from the metric system. Even still i think the review was positive enough to assume that some be people may enjoy it, just disagree with the external factors being taken into account.



A203D on 05 February 2012

I dont know if anyone has been following but Edge gave this 5/10. i'm a bit too busy to read the review, but the headline is outright hillarious:

http://www.edge-online.com/reviews/final-fantasy-xiii-2-review

"Can Square-Enix's lastest atone for the sins of its predecessor"

lol, FF13 is apparently a sin now.