IGN scores the BioShock Collection a perfect and logical 8.2/10 - General

[video=youtube;51qJ9m2UPTc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51qJ9m2UPTc[/video] Despite the other games being around 9 and 9.5

Do we even need to review re releases? Don't most review sites make a point that they don't review updates to games?

are they gonna complain about 'too much water'?

What does the .2 even mean number scores r so stupid

[QUOTE=Nautsabes;51050156]What does the .2 even mean number scores r so stupid[/QUOTE] 82/100? 8.2/10? Basically it's 8=good, 9=great, 10=perfect If it's 8.2 it means pretty much it's a bit better than good

[QUOTE=Antimuffin;51050174]82/100? 8.2/10? Basically it's 8=good, 9=great, 10=perfect If it's 8.2 it means pretty much it's a bit better than good[/QUOTE] Isn't a big problem with using 1-10 though that people generally perceive below 7 as 'bad' even though technically 5 should be 'satisfactory'. You see the same thing on IMDB, even I get caught up in the mentality of seeing a film scored under 7 on there and almost dismiss it even though some of the best films I have seen have been given under 7s. Scores are trash because they are completely inconsistent. 9-10 scores should be reserved for 'the most amazing game to come out in years' rather than any game that is pretty good getting up there.

So how does this do worse than the others? thanks IGN

[QUOTE=Cushie;51050211]Isn't a big problem with using 1-10 though that people generally perceive below 7 as 'bad' even though technically 5 should be 'satisfactory'. You see the same thing on IMDB, even I get caught up in the mentality of seeing a film scored under 7 on there and almost dismiss it even though some of the best films I have seen have been given under 7s. Scores are trash because they are completely inconsistent. 9-10 scores should be reserved for 'the most amazing game to come out in years' rather than any game that is pretty good getting up there.[/QUOTE] That perception of scores probably comes from school grading scales. AKA anything below an 80 is "average."

[QUOTE=Jelman;51050219]So how does this do worse than the others? thanks IGN[/QUOTE] the first 2 games were reviewed by charles onyett, infinite was reviewed by ryan mccaffrey. this review was by jonathon dornbush. if you read the full review you'll find out why he gave it a lower score. in short: his review critiques the collection as a rerelease rather than a fresh look at the games. he states that the first game was great to come back to as they added new directors commentary as unlockables to find in the levels, where the second and third game don't add any new content and the upgraded visuals are only really impressive in the first game.

why 8.2 why not 8.3 why not add another point for a 8.25 whats the point of these terribly specific scores

the 2 main points are: 1) different reviewer 2) this is a updated release

have they said anything about not tying physics to 30 fps in the first game? i know theres a patch to fix that, but thats always been one of the few things wrong with 1

[QUOTE=Nexosz;51050261]why 8.2 why not 8.3 why not add another point for a 8.25 whats the point of these terribly specific scores[/QUOTE] why care about a score so much

[QUOTE=Furnost;51050288]have they said anything about not tying physics to 30 fps in the first game? i know theres a patch to fix that, but thats always been one of the few things wrong with 1[/QUOTE] Physics are not tied to 30 FPS anymore, from what I've seen in the videos.

Once you start going beyond scores that are accurate beyond 1/20, you've lost me. I'm just imagining some pompous man going "ah yes, I rate this collection of not-new interactive video games eight and one fifths out of ten."

I've even seen people using decimals in the "Rate the last film you watched" thread, so they must have a good reason, right? [editline]14th September 2016[/editline] I mean I use ".5" but that's it. How a person can rate anything a "6.3" or "8.7" out of 10 is beyond me.

I dunno what's worse, these arbitrary rating systems or people that get genuienly upset that their favourite games didn't get a high enough arbitrary rating

Review scores are dumb\bullshit anyways, and you guy are making fun of 8.2? So many factors can change a score that has nothing to do with the game such as what the reviewer ate, etc.

[QUOTE=Cushie;51050211]Isn't a big problem with using 1-10 though that people generally perceive below 7 as 'bad' even though technically 5 should be 'satisfactory'. You see the same thing on IMDB, even I get caught up in the mentality of seeing a film scored under 7 on there and almost dismiss it even though some of the best films I have seen have been given under 7s. Scores are trash because they are completely inconsistent. 9-10 scores should be reserved for 'the most amazing game to come out in years' rather than any game that is pretty good getting up there.[/QUOTE] for one, american grading system does a number on your perspective of ratings, as 70-79 ("C") is "average" while 59 and below is absolute failure, and depending on where you go a 69 earns only partial credit at best and is also deemed a moderate failure

[QUOTE=Cushie;51050211]Isn't a big problem with using 1-10 though that people generally perceive below 7 as 'bad' even though technically 5 should be 'satisfactory'. You see the same thing on IMDB, even I get caught up in the mentality of seeing a film scored under 7 on there and almost dismiss it even though some of the best films I have seen have been given under 7s. Scores are trash because they are completely inconsistent. 9-10 scores should be reserved for 'the most amazing game to come out in years' rather than any game that is pretty good getting up there.[/QUOTE] Its why i always preferred the 5 star system.

I think 7 is more seen as "not worth buying" rather than straight up "bad". Because you can only buy a finite amount of games every year, you go for the absolute must haves instead. That is games rated 8 and up. For example the Mad Max game is generally seen as a 7/10. It's a good game with really nice car combat but it fails to innovate or otherwise surprise people. The reason why scores below ~6 are rarely used is not because there's some sort of score inflation. It's because most games that get chosen for review are generally games that already look interesting and has some actual hype behind it. There's a reason why mediocre-pixelart-platformer #539157 won't get a review. No one cares about it (=no clicks) and you can tell just by looking at it that it's an average game or worse. If it turns out to be surprisingly good, someone might actually give it a review and boom, we have another 7+ review. With that said, yeah reviewscores can be interpreted differently and I think reviewers should stick with a short summary instead if they really want people to be able to get the basic idea without reading/watching the whole thing.

[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;51050477]I dunno what's worse, these arbitrary rating systems or people that get genuienly upset that their favourite games didn't get a high enough arbitrary rating[/QUOTE] are there any ratings systems that aren't arbitrary

[QUOTE=Pat.Lithium;51050259]the first 2 games were reviewed by charles onyett, infinite was reviewed by ryan mccaffrey. this review was by jonathon dornbush. if you read the full review you'll find out why he gave it a lower score. in short: his review critiques the collection as a rerelease rather than a fresh look at the games. he states that the first game was great to come back to as they added new directors commentary as unlockables to find in the levels, where the second and third game don't add any new content and the upgraded visuals are only really impressive in the first game.[/QUOTE] sounds completely reasonable, but it's ign so we have to get mad at it i guess

I think this is a score of the remaster more then of the games, so I guess it's an 8.2/10 in terms of remastering, not of the games themselves. I thought that was clear from even just the video. I mean it'd be meaningless to just talk about the games, but it's well framed for people looking at it from the 'should I spend the money to rebuy this for the upgrade?' since it's pretty much given that the games are worth playing in the first place.

[QUOTE=Spectre1406;51050134]are they gonna complain about 'too much water'?[/QUOTE] aint gonna lie ORAS had way too much fucking water

[QUOTE=redBadger;51052804]aint gonna lie ORAS had way too much fucking water[/QUOTE] but that's how it's like in the original [editline]15th September 2016[/editline] at least the surf music in ORAS is way better

bull shit its an 8.17 at best maybe even a 8.199 at best

[QUOTE=J!NX;51053133]bull shit its an 8.17 at best maybe even a 8.199 at best[/QUOTE] Would 8.1999 = 8.2?

[QUOTE=mooman1080;51050124]Do we even need to review re releases?[/QUOTE] I say yes, we do. Ports and "remasters" can turn out to be broken pieces of shit, and it's happened before (ex: Silent Hill HD Collection). Some companies do very quick and dirty port jobs on these things, and it's important to let consumers know that it's a shitty port. I was going to buy the Silent Hill HD Collection in order to get into the series until I did some reading and found through reviews that it's actually terrible. There are more examples of bad "remasters" other than Silent Hill, but it's one of the top offenders.

[QUOTE=Shugo;51053484]I say yes, we do. Ports and "remasters" can turn out to be broken pieces of shit, and it's happened before (ex: Silent Hill HD Collection). Some companies do very quick and dirty port jobs on these things, and it's important to let consumers know that it's a shitty port. I was going to buy the Silent Hill HD Collection in order to get into the series until I did some reading and found through reviews that it's actually terrible. There are more examples of bad "remasters" other than Silent Hill, but it's one of the top offenders.[/QUOTE] Considering that Tomm Hulett wanted to completely rewrite the script of Silent Hill 2, it could have been [I]worse[/I].