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

Forums - Website Topics - VGchartz reviews: way too nice and illogical!!!

ssj12 on 25 March 2009
Barozi said:
Khuutra said:
Fair enough.

What's the problem with deviating from metacritic, though?

Nothing. But if it deviates too much from the average of ~100 other reviewers, the review seems just less credible IMO.

While I can understand, that there can be a wider gap with "mediocre" or "only good" games, a true AAA game shouldn't get comparatively "low" scores.

Like my previous example. I wouldn't consider a review credible if they rated SMG a 8.5 out of 10.

 

why are you JUST caring about the scoring though? why dont you look at the reasoning behind a score before jumping to conclusions? Also why does a AAA title have to to have a A score? An 8.5 is damn good. The thing is that there could be factors keeping it from getting a score higher like game length, bugs, and other issues like camera angle during some parts.



PC gaming is better than console gaming. Always.     We are Anonymous, We are Legion    Kick-ass interview   Great Flash Series Here    Anime Ratings     Make and Play Please
Amazing discussion about being wrong
Official VGChartz Folding@Home Team #109453
 
Around the Network
Khuutra on 25 March 2009
im_sneaky said:
As low as the bar is for video game journalism and reviews, VGC so far doesn't make it. But they are new at reviewing, give them time to practice.

Feel free to offer advice on how we might improve. We are very much open to suggestions.



Barozi on 25 March 2009
ssj12 said:
Barozi said:
Khuutra said:
Fair enough.

What's the problem with deviating from metacritic, though?

Nothing. But if it deviates too much from the average of ~100 other reviewers, the review seems just less credible IMO.

While I can understand, that there can be a wider gap with "mediocre" or "only good" games, a true AAA game shouldn't get comparatively "low" scores.

Like my previous example. I wouldn't consider a review credible if they rated SMG a 8.5 out of 10.

why are you JUST caring about the scoring though? why dont you look at the reasoning behind a score before jumping to conclusions? Also why does a AAA title have to to have a A score? An 8.5 is damn good. The thing is that there could be facotrs keeping it from getting a score higher like game length, bugs, and other issues like camera angle during some parts.

Because basically the score is meant to represent a review.

Now if I can't agree with a score and I assume it does represent that review, it fails IMO. If I can can agree with the text, but not with their score, it fails. If there are reasons, why did other reviews mention them, but still gave a good score ?

 

A 8.5 is indeed a pretty good score, but for some games it's just blasphemy. I could never agree with someone who would rate Half-Life 2 a 8.5



Baggins on 25 March 2009
Tremble said:

First of all, this is MY opinion, right? OK let's go ...

Well, the title says everything, mediocre games should get a mediocre score and when I see dead rising wii getting almost 8, or afro samurai gettin almost 6, well, that's BS imo.

 

Then illogical, I won't make a liste, I'd just say: chrono trigger: 8,8, FFIV: 9,0 ...

 

Would be cool if reviewers could be a little more hard, cause I don't understand why reviewing games if it's to give all of them 7+ ...

 

 

Yep, I agree.

 

The problem is they don't want to upset the PS3 fanbase majority so are very lenient on PS3 games and don't make much light of negative differemces in multiplats when comparing 360\PS3 versions. They also get harsh mods to review 360 games, or people who just don't care about that type of game.

Annoying.

edit - just my opinion though, I must be biased subconciously maybe.



Staude on 25 March 2009
TruckOSaurus said:
Staude said:
nordlead said:
Staude said:

 

I doubt that very much as I seem to enjoy most commonly known good games. Maybe it's just that I like new games and not rehashes. Even sequals of other games has less rehasing.

So tekken 6 isn't a rehash, while brawl and galaxy are? I fail to see any logic behind this.

 

I would say touche if not for the fact that tekken has a deep story that evolves in each litteration :P

 

And brings brand new chars into each game and new game modes. For instance the third person action adventure found in tekken 5 or the online found in the psn version.

Each person in the game has a personality and a story .. it's not just their move list that evolves but their very essence.. (and age)

So tekken does really reinvent itself in every version. It's also the reason why some people like some tekken games over others, for instance, a lot of people prefere tekken 3 over tekken 4 because 4 opted for a more realistic approach, while most people in general prefere 5 because of the brand new way everything feels while you are playing.

 

Okay, I love Tekken and I know you wanted to back up your point but saying Tekken has a deep story is ridiculous. Every character that isn't Mishima related gets a pointless backstory as to why they entered the tournament and in the end you get a funny cutscene that wraps up their story. The story in Tekken (and most fighting games for that matter) is just an afterthought.

 

 

I disagree.. some has irrelevent stories to the plot sure, but the stories aren't a after thought. Sounds like you haven't played tekken 5 either where story was more integrated throughout the storymode. (tekken 4 also did some of this though not as well)



Check out my game about moles ^

Around the Network
ssj12 on 25 March 2009
Barozi said:
ssj12 said:
Barozi said:
Khuutra said:
Fair enough.

What's the problem with deviating from metacritic, though?

Nothing. But if it deviates too much from the average of ~100 other reviewers, the review seems just less credible IMO.

While I can understand, that there can be a wider gap with "mediocre" or "only good" games, a true AAA game shouldn't get comparatively "low" scores.

Like my previous example. I wouldn't consider a review credible if they rated SMG a 8.5 out of 10.

why are you JUST caring about the scoring though? why dont you look at the reasoning behind a score before jumping to conclusions? Also why does a AAA title have to to have a A score? An 8.5 is damn good. The thing is that there could be facotrs keeping it from getting a score higher like game length, bugs, and other issues like camera angle during some parts.

Because basically the score is meant to represent a review.

Now if I can't agree with a score and I assume it does represent that review, it fails IMO. If I can can agree with the text, but not with their score, it fails. If there are reasons, why did other reviews mention them, but still gave a good score ?

 

A 8.5 is indeed a pretty good score, but for some games it's just blasphemy. I could never agree with someone who would rate Half-Life 2 a 8.5

 

The one thing I can guarantee is that our reviewers aren't swayed by gifts or hype so our games are based on how much the person reviewing the game enjoyed or hated a game. which is guess what? how a review is supposed to be. all about enjoyment. Even film critics base their judgments on enjoyment. If a movie sucks you will know it, if a critic enjoyed the movie you will know it.



PC gaming is better than console gaming. Always.     We are Anonymous, We are Legion    Kick-ass interview   Great Flash Series Here    Anime Ratings     Make and Play Please
Amazing discussion about being wrong
Official VGChartz Folding@Home Team #109453
 
ssj12 on 25 March 2009
Baggins said:
Tremble said:

First of all, this is MY opinion, right? OK let's go ...

Well, the title says everything, mediocre games should get a mediocre score and when I see dead rising wii getting almost 8, or afro samurai gettin almost 6, well, that's BS imo.

 

Then illogical, I won't make a liste, I'd just say: chrono trigger: 8,8, FFIV: 9,0 ...

 

Would be cool if reviewers could be a little more hard, cause I don't understand why reviewing games if it's to give all of them 7+ ...

 

 

Yep, I agree.

 

The problem is they don't want to upset the PS3 fanbase majority so are very lenient on PS3 games and don't make much light of negative differemces in multiplats when comparing 360PS3 versions. They also get harsh mods to review 360 games, or people who just don't care about that type of game.

Annoying.

I'm just going to laugh hysterically at this end judgment.

 



PC gaming is better than console gaming. Always.     We are Anonymous, We are Legion    Kick-ass interview   Great Flash Series Here    Anime Ratings     Make and Play Please
Amazing discussion about being wrong
Official VGChartz Folding@Home Team #109453
 
Barozi on 25 March 2009
ssj12 said:
Barozi said:
ssj12 said:
Barozi said:
Khuutra said:
Fair enough.

What's the problem with deviating from metacritic, though?

Nothing. But if it deviates too much from the average of ~100 other reviewers, the review seems just less credible IMO.

While I can understand, that there can be a wider gap with "mediocre" or "only good" games, a true AAA game shouldn't get comparatively "low" scores.

Like my previous example. I wouldn't consider a review credible if they rated SMG a 8.5 out of 10.

why are you JUST caring about the scoring though? why dont you look at the reasoning behind a score before jumping to conclusions? Also why does a AAA title have to to have a A score? An 8.5 is damn good. The thing is that there could be facotrs keeping it from getting a score higher like game length, bugs, and other issues like camera angle during some parts.

Because basically the score is meant to represent a review.

Now if I can't agree with a score and I assume it does represent that review, it fails IMO. If I can can agree with the text, but not with their score, it fails. If there are reasons, why did other reviews mention them, but still gave a good score ?

 

A 8.5 is indeed a pretty good score, but for some games it's just blasphemy. I could never agree with someone who would rate Half-Life 2 a 8.5

The one thing I can guarantee is that our reviewers aren't swayed by gifts or hype so our games are based on how much the person reviewing the game enjoyed or hated a game. which is guess what? how a review is supposed to be. all about enjoyment. Even film critics base their judgments on enjoyment. If a movie sucks you will know it, if a critic enjoyed the movie you will know it.

Sure sure. But when 90% of reviewers have a different opinion. Why should I believe the other 10% ?



DKII on 25 March 2009
Barozi said:

Now if I can't agree with a score and I assume it does represent that review, it fails IMO.

 

That's a pretty ridiculous statement that just marginalizes the rest of your argument.

I suggest you go look up the standard distribution and what a standard deviation means.

All reviews here are vetted by the staff to ensure that the scores are justified, the scores match the content, and the content is complete.  If you're looking for someone to tell you want to hear instead of honest criticisms, go elsewhere.



Barozi on 25 March 2009
DKII said:
Barozi said:

Now if I can't agree with a score and I assume it does represent that review, it fails IMO.

That's a pretty ridiculous statement that just marginalizes the rest of your argument.

I suggest you go look up the standard distribution and what a standard deviation means.

All reviews here are vetted by the staff to ensure that the scores are justified, the scores match the content, and the content is complete.  If you're looking for someone to tell you want to hear instead of honest criticisms, go elsewhere.

lol I don't visit VGChartz for their reviews ^^