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

Forums - Sony - Metacritic Scores for Q1/Q2 PS3games?

Rainbird on 07 December 2009

I have to agree with Akvod. You can't say that a game by definition deserves a higher score than other games.

God of War III - 91

Final Fantasy XIII - 93

Heavy Rain - 90

Bayonetta - 91

Bioshock 2 - 89

Dead Rising 2 - 84

Dante's Inferno - 88

Gran Turismo 5 - 93

MAG - 85

Bad Company 2 - 84

White Knight Chronicles - 82



Around the Network
nen-suer on 07 December 2009

God of War III - 94

Final Fantasy XIII - 95

Heavy Rain - 90

Bayonetta - 92

Bioshock 2 - 92

Dead Rising 2 - 89

Dante's Inferno - 86

Gran Turismo 5 - 95

MAG - 86

Bad Company 2 - NA

White Knight Chronicles - 80



Vote to Localize — SEGA and Konami Polls

Vote Today To Help Get A Konami & SEGA Game Localized.This Will Only Work If Lots Of People Vote.

Click on the Image to Head to the Voting Page (A vote for Yakuza is a vote to save gaming)

Slimebeast on 07 December 2009

God of War III - 92

Final Fantasy XIII - 91

Heavy Rain - 85

Bayonetta - 84

Bioshock 2 - 92

Dead Rising 2 - 83

Dante's Inferno - 87

Gran Turismo 5 - 94

MAG - 83



Euphoria14 on 07 December 2009

ModNation Racers was leaked as a Feb. release in OPM.

Also don't forget 3D Dot Game Heroes. May 11th release.



iPhone = Great gaming device. Don't agree? Who cares, because you're wrong.

Currently playing:

Final Fantasy VI (iOS), Final Fantasy: Record Keeper (iOS) & Dragon Quest V (iOS)     

    

Got a retro room? Post it here!

Akvod on 07 December 2009
Wonktonodi said:
Akvod said:
Seece said:
Akvod said:
Seece said:
Akvod said:
CGI-Quality said:
Seece said:
Carl2291 said:
The only problem with Heavy Rain's score is this -

You know full well there will be a bunch of people who wont be able to get to grips with it, and will give it a 50/100 or something.

I think it will be one of those games that will just miss the "AAA" status, because of a few harsh reviews.

Kinda like Demon's Souls and R&C:ToD

Exactly, which is a shame. A lot of low scores (for various games across the board) should not be counted, because even though a reviewer may not like the game, you need to give credit where credit is due. If a game had undoubtably got the graphics, the gameplay, the story ect, but the review JUST doesn't like it, so gives it 6/10 ... that just isn't fair.

I concur.

Yeah, but doesn't the reviewer not like the game BECAUSE he thinks that the games is deficient in either graphics, gameplay, story, etc?

... I mean you two are believing that a reviewer subconsciously likes a game and doesn't give the score he really has for the game... IDK it's a very weird theory you two guys are having.

 

If you're saying that the general consesus is that the game has the graphics, gameplay, story, etc, and that the reviewer should give a score based on that, you two are only promoting the current score inflation problem.

I believe the score should be based equally on it's own merits, and the reviewers opinion (aka if it's FUN, ect)

When I say low score I don't mean 7/10. I mean 5 and in some cases 6, to a game that clearly deserves a 9+. If reviews were 100% opinion they would be worthless, they have to have some basis on the quality of the game.

 

CGI can probably explain it better than I can ..

I mean, there's a difference between demanding consistency from a reviewer, and saying that a reviewer should give a good score to a game, because it's a good game.

The first demand is absolutely correct. However, I'm just weirded out at the second demand because it depends on the axiom, assumption, etc that the game IS good and deserves a good score, which is just bull shit because it's subjective. The second demand is an impossible one because unless you can objectively say a game deserves a good score, the theory just collapses.

Even things like graphics, you hear Xbox 360 fans deriding Killzone 2's artstyle, or PS3 fans deriding GeoW as bieng "Shiny".

There's few objective things to judge a game on.

So my point: You demand reviewers judge games based on objective qualities, but I argue that the demand collapses because there are few such objective qualities.

CGI-Quality said:

My point is simple, I find it bad that because a game is different, it receives a thrashing from reviewers. I'm pretty sure that was Seece's point as well too my friend.

 Yeah, but unless you can prove that it's just speculation. Even with the Wii-bash theory, it's very hard to ALL CERTAINTY, prove this. If a game is "different" it's different. You can't really point to another game and say "Hey, they gave A game a 100, but B game 50! Clearly there's bias against 'difference/uniqueness'"

I mean most 'different/unique' games have radically different gameplay (flower, scriblenauts, etc for example). So you can't say "They gave 'generic FPS' a 100, but gave 'unique genre defining title' a 50" The gameplay is completely different. Graphics probably will be different games too (for "artsy" types).

 

The only way to show some bias is to have 2 exactly or similar games, and the reviewer gives different scores for an arbitrary reason (example, a multi plat for the HD twins).

It's not subjective to say Killzone 2 graphics/art style deserves anything less than a 7. It just isn't. I get your point, and that's fine, but I'm talking about games that are clearly up there with graphics/gameplay/story. That are flawless and CANNOT be argued. An extreme example would be to give Gears of War a 1 for graphics, that's a false score. That would be purely (bias) opinion and not worth the paper it's written on.

 

No, even the most "obvious" examples are not completely objective.

Lets us say as an objective fact:

GeoW's graphics deserve at least a 7.

Now let's go 20-30 years into the fewturreeeeeeee

A game that has GeoW graphics will be laughed at. Has the graphics changed? No. Only the subjective and ever changing opinions of people did.

Gravity doesn't change. The property of redness doesn't change. 1+1=2 doesn't change. I'm not defining objectivity to be something that doesn't change with time. Example, the ice in my cup is going to change into a liquid. But given the SAME exact conditions (the laws of the Universe are intact, and the same enviornment exists), a new block of ice will melt.

If I cloned a reviewer in the future, and raised him with the society and made him play games of his time, he will think that the graphics of GeoW is shit. It is not the reviewer, GeoW that changed, but the society and standards he received.

 

IDK, I guess I'm really being anal about the definition of "objective", but if you guys weren't giving such a rigid and law like demand and claim, I wouldn't be.

Yeah, intuitievely and common sense wise I'll think GeoW should get a high score for graphics, but I'll never say that it is an objective fact that the graphics of GeoW are good.

reviewers aren't being asked to review how a game will be 20 years from now though they are reviewing it for today. 

But I think the big point of what they were saying is how people give things lower scores because they are different and not sure how to review them.  Wii fit is something that I think many rewiers didn't know how to handle since most game rewiers aren't reviewing things for fitness as well.  Although i think many did do a good job and some of the issues were taken care of with plus. 

Yes, I don't think reviewers shouldn't review how a game will be 20 years from now. My point with the example though is how reviews are subjective things that change with people's opinions and standards, not with the actual game itself. This was in response to the claim that games somehow have an "objective" quality or score.

And my other point is that proving that these reviewers give score on experimental or "unique" titles is very hard, if not impossible unless they admit it themselves.



Around the Network
yusuke93_ita on 07 December 2009

God of War III - 90

Final Fantasy XIII - 93

Heavy Rain - 95

Bayonetta - 80

Bioshock 2 - 89

Dead Rising 2 - 75

Dante's Inferno - 86

Gran Turismo 5 - 98

MAG - 88




gustave154 on 07 December 2009

Bayonetta is going to get insane reviews get ready to be shocked.



Owner of : PS1/PSOne , PS2 phat/slim  , PS3 phat/slim , PS Eye+Move and PSP phat/slim/brite/go (Sony)

The Official PS Vita Thread! Get all your latest PS Vita news here! Come join us!

 


domandthemachine on 07 December 2009

gt5-98 =o



In The End , There Will Be Only Chaos

Akvod on 07 December 2009
CGI-Quality said:
@ Akvod

You've misunderstood my point from Jump street. The reviewing system can undeniably be unfair at times, whether it's in favor of a game or not. I'm not sure how much more I can explain it to you.

What a game does 20 years from now is irrelevant, as standards change all the time.

Standards change and differ, not only with time, but with people as well.

My question is, how you can possibly detect bias. Even if you point to one game and then point to a different "unique" game, the fact remains that they are both different games. If you have a reviewer grading differently for a game that's exactly the same, only on different consoles, that'll be an definite example of bias. But there can be a lot of reasons, bullshit or not, given to explain different scores for different games.

 

I'm not arguing that there isn't bias, but I'm arguing how you and seece act like you can detect bias with ALL CERTAINTY. You can make good guesses, but when you start saying stuff like this game definetly and objectively deserves this score, and shit like that, I just don't like it.

 

So do I think think there's bias? Ya man, I'm totally with you. But am I going to say that I know that with all certainty, and that is something that can be proven certainly? No, and that's the only thing we differ on. I admit that it's just intuition and guessing, while you and seece believe there's some sort of system.



Akvod on 07 December 2009
CGI-Quality said:
Akvod said:
CGI-Quality said:
@ Akvod

You've misunderstood my point from Jump street. The reviewing system can undeniably be unfair at times, whether it's in favor of a game or not. I'm not sure how much more I can explain it to you.

What a game does 20 years from now is irrelevant, as standards change all the time.

Standards change and differ, not only with time, but with people as well.

My question is, how you can possibly detect bias. Even if you point to one game and then point to a different "unique" game, the fact remains that they are both different games. If you have a reviewer grading differently for a game that's exactly the same, only on different consoles, that'll be an definite example of bias. But there can be a lot of reasons, bullshit or not, given to explain different scores for different games.

 

I'm not arguing that there isn't bias, but I'm arguing how you and seece act like you can detect bias with ALL CERTAINTY. You can make good guesses, but when you start saying stuff like this game definetly and objectively deserves this score, and shit like that, I just don't like it.

 

So do I think think there's bias? Ya man, I'm totally with you. But am I going to say that I know that with all certainty, and that is something that can be proven certainly? No, and that's the only thing we differ on. I admit that it's just intuition and guessing, while you and seece believe there's some sort of system.

Of course it can't always be proven with a certainty. But this wasn't my point, it was that the bias DOES exist, be it in favor of a said project or against it. If you're with me on that, than we agree for the most part.


Well no, there's also the additional claim/attitude that a game somehow "deserves" a score as if it were objective. Seece argued/stated that GeoW deserves at least a 7 in graphics I believe.

I think so too, but again, it's ultimately subjective.