TB will now talk about negative Mad Max reviews for just over 40 minutes - General

[QUOTE=boobs;48665665]Okay the only reason people read reviews is they want the opinion of a game from someone they may trust or seems trusted. So of course a review is going to have the reviewer critique parts and praise parts. He has to say he either likes aspects or he doesnt like them. What you're describing that you want isnt a review. It's a summary.[/QUOTE] I guess I was being vague, sorry about that. a summery without a number at all, is way better than "7 out of 10 good graphics", which oddly seems to be the typical 'review'. Sure it's longer to read but it's a lot easier to understand exactly whats bad. Though that's far from what you're describing, you're talking about reviews from people who aren't insane. most reviews are really just summaries of games anyways. Long or short, they're just summaries. what I want is the opinion of the game, but with absolutely no numbers involved. Describe the game without calling it "Bad" or "Good". Just describe WHY it's bad or good, and the user will decide themselves. a review shouldn't just say "the game is bad", or "The game is good" and that's it, it should be a series of summaries. Summarize whats good and bad. Every game that is made by anyone with some level of competence has good in it, even the worst games deserve to have good things said about them. Unless the games absolutely objectively broken, it's unfair to review a game as "bad" off the bat or just blindly praise it.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;48665742]the thing ign does w/ the pros and cons of the game are really handy i'd prefer that being the norm compared to number systems i.e. pros of mad max: cool car combat nice graphix meaningful progression system for the cars cons: ubisoftlike gameplay structure repetitive uninteresting melee combat etc[/QUOTE] Sad that most of the time they seem to give it meaningless cons or pros, or really odd ones. They could do a lot more with that system. [editline]12th September 2015[/editline] For short reviews, this could work, but maybe it'd be nicer if they had summaries of aspects ~Sound ~Narrative ~Plot ~Optimization ~Netcode/multiplayer ~Gameplay ~Balance/Difficulty ~Graphics the 8 biggest things described in 1 or 2 sentence(s) each, marked with Con or Pro. if it's "Not important" either add to an "additional thoughts" note or nix it. Most of the time IGN seems to skip stuff. Then maybe use the same idea boobs had, but cut it to 1 to 4 possibly (Pass/rent/rent or buy/buy) [QUOTE=boobs;48664023]5 out of 10 is 50% If a game hits 50% of the mark, its usually probably not a good game at all. I think around 6-7 is where you start getting into average/good territory. I honestly believe that 1-5 is a good way to rate something, terrible; 1 | pass bad; 2 | pass average; 3 | rent good; 4 | rent/buy great; 5 | buy[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=J!NX;48665769]Sad that most of the time they seem to give it meaningless cons or pros, or really odd ones. They could do a lot more with that system. [editline]12th September 2015[/editline] For short reviews, this could work, but maybe it'd be nicer if they had summaries of aspects ~Sound ~Narrative ~Plot ~Optimization ~Netcode/multiplayer ~Gameplay ~Balance/Difficulty ~Graphics the 8 biggest things described in 1 or 2 sentence(s) each, marked with Con or Pro. if it's "Not important" either add to an "additional thoughts" note or nix it. Most of the time IGN seems to skip stuff. Then maybe use the same idea boobs had, but cut it to 1 to 4 possibly (Pass/rent/rent or buy/buy)[/QUOTE] I can see why some schools use the 1-4 system, and it could be good for game review. There are clear distinctions between each number on the quality scale. 1 - barely gradeable 2 - has some substance but need clarity/cleanup 3 - good quality; can definitely pass 4 - above expectations, is beyond the mold With a 1-10 scale I feel things get too muddy; what's the difference between a 2 and a 3? or a 4 and a 5? All numbers under 5 are just joke numbers pretty much. Like someone said earlier, what's a 1 going to do, make the reviewer kill himself?

I don't think reviewers/consumers are in the dark as far as scores being a terrible rating system. Truth is though consumers are lazy and want to be able to make quick impressions. Because lets face it time spent reading reviews is time we could spend doing something else. That being said I would score things differently myself and refuse to give an overall score. Only rating the various aspects of the game followed by answers to: Who is the target audience? Should you buy it if you are X? That way you get all the primary benefits of the score system with a quick glance without being entirely full of shit.

I think there might be some merit in comparing games to famous similar games. "It's a first person shooter" can mean anything from half life to doom to pokemon snap, but "it's CoD-like" conveys far more information and expectations.

[QUOTE=Ardosos;48666029]I think there might be some merit in comparing games to famous similar games. "It's a first person shooter" can mean anything from half life to doom to pokemon snap, but "it's CoD-like" conveys far more information and expectations.[/QUOTE] True but this is something that often gets manhandled. Especially when applied to genre mixes and innovative titles. Might work better on a consistent basis if you isolate the specific elements that it takes from a game. For example instead of just saying cod like you say: "It emulates a lot from the the movement scheme from COD however it adds upon it by adding X and Y."

[QUOTE=Robber;48658492]critics don't like the game using Arkham combat [I]again[/I] [/QUOTE] *Batman-Boxing

[QUOTE=Virtanen;48666137]*Batman-Boxing[/QUOTE] Thinking of it I am not too familiar with the following series so I may be entirely wrong. But isn't batman boxing just a slightly more visually obvious version of assassins creed combat? If so its kinda odd that everybody is calling it batman boxing.

[QUOTE=Murky42;48666234]Thinking of it I am not too familiar with the following series so I may be entirely wrong. But isn't batman boxing just a slightly more visually obvious version of assassins creed combat? If so its kinda odd that everybody is calling it batman boxing.[/QUOTE] batman boxing sounds more fun than "assassins creed combat" that's honestly it I think.

Assassin's Creed started it, Arkham codified it.

I never attached a number score to my reviews because 90% of the arguments in the comments are going to be about that number score. I'd rater someone read through my review and have counter-points to what I've written.

[QUOTE=megafat;48666378]I never attached a number score to my reviews because 90% of the arguments in the comments are going to be about that number score. I'd rater someone read through my review and have counter-points to what I've written.[/QUOTE] The thing about scores is that they work as quick guidance tool. If a game has high score, the chances of me reading the review grow drastically. If the score is low, I might not bother unless I'm curious.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;48666416]The thing about scores is that they work as quick guidance tool. If a game has high score, the chances of me reading the review grow drastically. If the score is low, I might not bother unless I'm curious.[/QUOTE] I've always had scores that I've kept to myself. But people still seem to focus on that score.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;48666416]The thing about scores is that they work as quick guidance tool. If a game has high score, the chances of me reading the review grow drastically. If the score is low, I might not bother unless I'm curious.[/QUOTE] Depends on the game IMO. If a game is rated by a lot of critics/AAA. I will typically home in on the lowest review first. They typically tend to be the most informative. Sadly empty praise is simply far too easy.

[QUOTE=Murky42;48666709] Sadly empty praise is simply far too easy.[/QUOTE] Unfair/irrelevant opinions in reviews are even more common as TB pointed out.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;48666981]Unfair/irrelevant opinions in reviews are even more common as TB pointed out.[/QUOTE] True but I find those easier to spot and judge for myself on the merits of their arguments. If somebody says X is terrible cuz Y I find it much easier to constructively think about it in comparison too: "EVERYTHING IS GREAT WOOO!" Sure you can also just as easily write "EVERYTHING IS SHIT" but that typically makes for a very shitty review unless truly everything is shit as that gets a shit ton of hate/loss of readers. Besides its just as easy to spot a reviewer mindlessly shitting on a game as it is to spot mindless praise. It's also far less likely for a review that shits on a game to be paid to shit on it.

I kinda think the silent majority is more of a symptom of people not caring as much or investing much time in games or movies, its human nature to get tired of repetition and people just don't watch or play enough to get to that point. I use to think transformers was a really good movie until right around that time I watched a great deal of the movies on the top lists of RT and IMDB (yes review scores hur hur). When I watch a movie now I may not specifically be able to point out its problems but I can recognize them subconcionasly and just feel like its a bad movie.

[QUOTE=Saxon;48672916]I kinda think the silent majority is more of a symptom of people not caring as much or investing much time in games or movies, its human nature to get tired of repetition and people just don't watch or play enough to get to that point. I use to think transformers was a really good movie until right around that time I watched a great deal of the movies on the top lists of RT and IMDB (yes review scores hur hur). When I watch a movie now I may not specifically be able to point out its problems but I can recognize them subconcionasly and just feel like its a bad movie.[/QUOTE] Most review scores of the top IMDB is actually genuinely good. Problem is sometimes undeserving trash gets piled up and categorized as one of the greats. Batman ain't bad mind you. But it certainly doesn't deserve a spot in the 250. Same goes for gaming except considerably more shit gets piled up.