Played 4 levels now, it's OK
| Volterra_90 said: What I was wondering about OC method is the sentence that says: "38% of reviewers recommend this game" or something like that. This percentage is based on the actual score (<75 is considered a "not recommended" review, for example) or is it based on actually reading the reviews and evaluating if the review is negative or positive? |
Yeah, we're still testing this one. One very, very important thing to understand is that "recommended" is very hard to generalize. It's hard to set even a philosophical bar. Should it be "recommended for fans of the series"? "Fans of the genre"? "All Gamers"? "Even non-gamers"?
For us, "recommended" means that the critic would unconditionally recommend the game to a general gamer
To us, that's intentionally meant to be a very high standard that's difficult to achieve. And it's important to understand this philosophy. "Recommended" can mean different things to different people. If a friend asks you about a product, your "recommendation" is almost always personalized to that friend. With critic reviews, recommendations aren't personalized, and so we have to speak in general terms.
We have it set to automatically parse it at 8/10 and higher. We also include non-scoring publications that issue a non-numeric verdict. Eurogamer, for example, rates games as "Avoid, No Verdict, Recommended, Essential," the last of two count as recommended. AngryCentaurGaming uses "Buy, Wait for Sale, Rent, Never Touch," and only the first is considered recommended. In these cases, we worked with the publications to draw the lines. Publications that do not issue a verdict are still excluded (AV Club, Totalbiscuit, Rock Paper Shotgun).
Having that said, we also have made some adjustments. It might sound ridiculous, but someone at OpenCritic has sat down and read the entirety of every single review. If we feel like there's an error (a 7.8 that sounds like a glowing recommendation), we can adjust it separately from the score.
One benefit of the system now is that it produces a completely uniform distribution. There are roughly as many games from 5-10% recommended as there are from 55-60% and 75-80%. Contrast that with average scores, where the move from 73-->75 jumps over way more games than the move from 54-->56, even though it's a 2 point difference in both cases.
maenthoven said:
Founder of OpenCritic here... First, SF0 has 72/100 We have this on OpenCritic so that we can settle the "what is a good score?" debate once and for all. The average score across all games that are reviewed is roughly 74/100. So Star Fox Zero is below average when compared to all other games reviewed. The main caveat is the massive selection bias. The reality is that truly awful games just don't get reviewed. There are a whole bunch of games deserving of 1/10 and 2/10. But the reality is that they don't market themselves, don't distribute review copies effectively, etc. But... There are roughly 70 games that have higher review scores that have come out in 2016 alone, and over 300 if you start to include 2015. If you were someone that just went in order based on review scores, and you played 1 game every couple of days, you might not ever get to Star Fox Zero. I don't say this to discourage you guys from playing - "good" and "bad" are completely subjective, and I can't know for you. I'm personally going to go see the next Star Wars movie because I love Star Wars, and the reviews don't change that. |
Interesting. Are you thinking of doing the same breakdowns for larger samples? Would be interested to see the breakdowns for individual reviewers or entire platforms for different spans of time.
maenthoven said:
Yeah, we're still testing this one. One very, very important thing to understand is that "recommended" is very hard to generalize. It's hard to set even a philosophical bar. Should it be "recommended for fans of the series"? "Fans of the genre"? "All Gamers"? "Even non-gamers"? For us, "recommended" means that the critic would unconditionally recommend the game to a general gamer To us, that's intentionally meant to be a very high standard that's difficult to achieve. And it's important to understand this philosophy. "Recommended" can mean different things to different people. If a friend asks you about a product, your "recommendation" is almost always personalized to that friend. With critic reviews, recommendations aren't personalized, and so we have to speak in general terms. We have it set to automatically parse it at 8/10 and higher. We also include non-scoring publications that issue a non-numeric verdict. Eurogamer, for example, rates games as "Avoid, No Verdict, Recommended, Essential," the last of two count as recommended. AngryCentaurGaming uses "Buy, Wait for Sale, Rent, Never Touch," and only the first is considered recommended. In these cases, we worked with the publications to draw the lines. Publications that do not issue a verdict are still excluded (AV Club, Totalbiscuit, Rock Paper Shotgun). Having that said, we also have made some adjustments. It might sound ridiculous, but someone at OpenCritic has sat down and read the entirety of every single review. If we feel like there's an error (a 7.8 that sounds like a glowing recommendation), we can adjust it separately from the score. One benefit of the system now is that it produces a completely uniform distribution. There are roughly as many games from 5-10% recommended as there are from 55-60% and 75-80%. Contrast that with average scores, where the move from 73-->75 jumps over way more games than the move from 54-->56, even though it's a 2 point difference in both cases. |
Okey, so it's a harsher metric than I previously thought! If that's the case, I understand that the percentage for SF: Zero is low. A lot of reviews have pointed that they recommend the game to SF fans, but they were not sure about the general gamer. Also, lots of them are below 80. I'll remember that when I see another OC page about a different game then. If you're talking about unconditional recommendation, it seems about right. I thought it was more like "it's alright, give it a try" recommendation. Also, kudos to the guy who read all the reviews haha. I love to read reviews, but I'd find tiresome to read all the SF:Zero reviews! :P
maenthoven said:
Founder of OpenCritic here... First, SF0 has 72/100 We have this on OpenCritic so that we can settle the "what is a good score?" debate once and for all. The average score across all games that are reviewed is roughly 74/100. So Star Fox Zero is below average when compared to all other games reviewed. The main caveat is the massive selection bias. The reality is that truly awful games just don't get reviewed. There are a whole bunch of games deserving of 1/10 and 2/10. But the reality is that they don't market themselves, don't distribute review copies effectively, etc. But... There are roughly 70 games that have higher review scores that have come out in 2016 alone, and over 300 if you start to include 2015. If you were someone that just went in order based on review scores, and you played 1 game every couple of days, you might not ever get to Star Fox Zero. I don't say this to discourage you guys from playing - "good" and "bad" are completely subjective, and I can't know for you. I'm personally going to go see the next Star Wars movie because I love Star Wars, and the reviews don't change that. |
Exactly this. A game rated 70 is a good game, but there are so many other *better* games out there, that you might as well not bother with the 70's.
Cerebralbore101 said:
Exactly this. A game rated 70 is a good game, but there are so many other *better* games out there, that you might as well not bother with the 70's. |
While playing games that are in the seventies is not something everyone is willing to do, you never know till u try these games that are within the 70 range. From what I know, Earthbound, for example, was not as well received and beloved back during its initial release as it is now. It took some time for critics and fans to truly appreciate the game before it became cult status. A lot of games that are within the 70 range are considered hidden gems anyway so..
I can't believe I'm about to say this, but the gyro aiming isn't that bad. I'm starting mission 2.
I spoke too soon. Ugh.
Kai_Mao said:
While playing games that are in the seventies is not something everyone is willing to do, you never know till u try these games that are within the 70 range. From what I know, Earthbound, for example, was not as well received and beloved back during its initial release as it is now. It took some time for critics and fans to truly appreciate the game before it became cult status. A lot of games that are within the 70 range are considered hidden gems anyway so.. |
I really didn't like Earthbound. The combat system was insanely simple. There were no animations for most of the battles. The animations were replaced with a text box explaining what what happening. The text box often went by too fast to read.
There are some games in the 70's that I have tried. Sometimes reviewers just get a game wrong. Disgaea is a good example. A lot of reviewers automatically gave a mediocre score on account of the alphamap graphics. Chromehounds is another good example. Reviewers never bothered to upgrade their mechs to the 5 card speed chip. As a result a lot of reviewers commented that the mechs moved like snails. I have to say though, I think examples such as these are rare cases.
As a fan of the 64 game, can someone give me a quick summary of why its meta is what it is? Not willing to read through all these replies, thx.
Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
