Jimquisition: Hate Out Of Ten

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

This problem is almost entirely the fault of the reviewers, they are the ones who have inflated review-scores to the point where no one can tell what they mean anymore.

I mean shit, this very site, the Escapist, gave Dragon Age II, a game that is patently worse than the original in every way, a score of 100%. That shit simply isn't fucking acceptable.

There needs to be an industry wide overhaul of the score system, and it needs to happen sooner, not later.

Kingsnake661:
Ok, I admit it... I'm starting to become a fan of this show... It took losing EC and having that time gap to fill during my lunch, but it's growing on me..

You know they are still making episodes right?

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/show/extra-credits

Every Wednesday.

Thank you for doing this episode.
My love for you Jim is now 6/5 :D

image

Probably my favourite video of his yet. It's great that he brought it up. Really well done, 6/5.

Here's a qualitative rating system used by the site boardgamegeek.com which tries to describe the willingness of a person to play the game given a choice, combined with its "addictive" qualities:

10 - Outstanding. Always want to play and expect this will never change.
9 - Excellent game. Always want to play it.
8 - Very good game. I like to play. Probably I'll suggest it and will never turn down a game.
7 - Good game, usually willing to play.
6 - Ok game, some fun or challenge at least, will play sporadically if in the right mood.
5 - Average game, slightly boring, take it or leave it.
4 - Not so good, it doesn't get me but could be talked into it on occasion.
3 - Likely won't play this again although could be convinced. Bad.
2 - Extremely annoying game, won't play this ever again.
1 - Defies description of a game. You won't catch me dead playing this. Clearly broken.

Within the site's community, a rating of 8+ is a guaranteed purchase. 7+ indicates a game that would be a surefire rent for fans of a game's particular genre. High sixes would be entertained if the price point was lowered / game wasn't purchased by the player. Anything from 6.25 on down would be largely passed on if there were other better alternatives. Ratings of 4 or less are more accusations of shoddy publishing/development more than anything else.

And really, critic valuations do come down to how much bang you're getting for your buck.

I have to say, that was one of your better episodes. Very enjoyable.
7.4/10

Kingsnake661:

And WHY... please explain to me, because i really don't understand, why do gamers even CARE about the game score... I'm honestly at a lose, i don't understand why it matters to people. I don't know, maybe being a older person who grew up loving all the movies that critics seemed to hate altered my view of critics in general, but game score have never ment a darn thing to me. Not ONCE has a review of ANY kind prevented me from playing or watching something i wanted too...

And I always assumed most people worked the same way, it honestly supprses me that anyone would be swayed in any way by a review.

Agreed. I never look at scores, you know what I look at? Gameplay footage and demos. If it looks like I would like it and I have the money to spend, I buy it and try to have fun with it, and if I don't like it then I try to give it to someone who does or trade it in. People need to relax and if they don't enjoy a game, then don't play it. THAT SIMPLE.

A good example of the faulty bullshit review system is the user scores for the new MW3 on metacritic. You can see all the glorious praise that review sites give it, but then when you look at the actual consumer base that played the game they fucking despise it. And the CEO of Activision is all like "why are the user reviews so low!?!?! Q_Q" Its because your game is a sad excuse for a cash grab you idiot.

I wish I could say this is something recent, but it isn't...

Conversely, the review in the Australian version of GamePro voiced a negative opinion on the game, giving Supreme Commander a rating of five out of ten. GamePro assessed Supreme Commander as an over-ambitious game, with performance (measured in frames per second), even on high end systems, as a major negative point. The reviewers observed that the game gradually slowed down while playing, and that this process accelerated when using the 'shift' key view. This review was subject to controversy, resulting in two rating compiling websites, Metacritic and Game Rankings, removing it from their websites.

The "controvosy" likely being fanboys who were hailing it as the second coming of RTS Jesus (where other review sites had been offering between 7 and 8 out of ten on average). And this bear in mind was all the way back in 2007.

This needs a follow up video about how every game is not fucking perfect, Game Informer just gave BF3 a 9.5, that campaign should at least drop the score by an entire 2 points

I don't think games should be given a score at all. As others have said, it reduces a complex opinion down to a simple number which can never do it justice.

There's that, and the fact that a good number of gaming journalists are in the back pockets of developers and publishers.

I watch Yahtzee, even though I rarely buy the games he talks about. His reviews are good and interesting enough to watch though. Most important is asking regular people who have played the game.

I have also noticed that a lot of reviewers miss the fundamental question of any game review; is it fun? There they go, banging on and on about graphics and whatever and all I want to know is whether or not it's fun. If there is a score, that's what it should be measuring.

In other words, if it must have a number, make it a fun meter. :)

I'd have to agree, greatly on this.

The reason gamers criticize the 8s and 9s and anything that's not a double digit or triple digit number is that they over-hype games and don't look deep into the games. And I agree with Jim on Yahoo's decision; I too especially hate people who are all like (and not to troll): "black ops is 100000000000000/10 best game evur" when everyone else I knew who liked the last few CODs said Black Ops was average at best, and everyone else I knew looked into it PROFESSIONALLY.

Great video, I have an insane proposition though get rid of the fucking numbers altogether, the numbers are always a weak method of calculating entertainments value because it works on levels of understanding beyond that of a mathmatical calculation.

The meat of the review is in its actual writing, read what the reviewer thought about it, what excited them what bored them, how it all came together as an experience. The score isn't important because it's so weak anyway.

I don't give half a shiny shit about numbers in reviews, they don't mean anything. There can be 10 out of 10 games i don't like purely because it's not my kind of thing, I've seen Pro Evo Soccer titles get the fabled 10 out of 10 and disliked them purely because they're a football game, something I have no interest in.

When Yahtzee reviews something he never uses numbers and it works, I leave thinking "Oh so he critized XYZ about it but said ABC were quite good" not "Oh wait he only said 8 out of 10 that obviously means the game has to be flawed"

We now live in an age where 7 is the lowest score a game gets, that's considered normal the system is broken as hell.

Right there with you dude, it is pretty mental how score inflation has warped the perspective of those that allready have way too much invested in a game.

Worgen:
I can only remember one review that really pissed me off and it wasn't the number that it got, it was one of the things the review mentioned, it said that the game had bad graphics, specifically it said this game had bad graphics
image image
That is a shot from kings bounty: the armored princess, the only way you can say that is bad graphics is if your so shallow you need every little fucken thing to be bump mapped out the ass.

looks like warcraft 3
i kind of want to play it.
hmmmmmm

Anybody remember the days of Amiga Power and the 50% score being the average?

The problem isn't the fanboy gamers, the problem is the 10 point scale. It is AWFUL, and I wish reviewers would just abandon this grading system all together, the 5 point scale is much better.

Because in an 10 point scale, 8 isn't great. 8 means good. 7 means mediocre... and 6 or less means the game is unplayable garbage. Maybe that's not how it's supposed to work, and maybe that's not how some reviewers intended it to be, but that's how the rating is construed. No one would have complained if the 8/10 would have instead been written as 4/5.

Stop using the 10 point scale, start using 5 point scales instead. And don't blame the gamers and call them "morons" when they misinterprate your score, it was you reviewers who conditioned us to think 8/10 was a weak score in the first place.

This is why I use Yahtzee as my only source of reviews. Numerical assignments for video games have gotten ridiculous. I don't even know why, I guess it's the fans, but movie reviewers don't have the same problem from what I've seen. If a movie is a 7/10 on imdb or a 60% on RottenTomatoes then it's still considered a good movie, and I would go and see it if it's a movie that looks appealing to me.

That or I just go play the damn game myself and don't base purchases on reviews. Nor does it take away from my fun if I enjoyed a game and then found that someone wrote a bad review for it.

Another good episode Jim Sterling. I like that CoD haters who posted on Destructoid saying why give MW3 a 9.5 vs. Battlefield 3 a 7.5.

Scores are meaningless and people shouldn't judge a game by numbers.

I didn't know this was an issue till i saw this video. if a game i liked got an 8 out of 10 i would think "sweet! my game studied hard and got a B" not "BLASPHEMY!!!!!"

To go along with this, destructoid wrote an official review guide for their reviews.
http://www.destructoid.com/the-official-destructoid-review-guide-2011-203909.phtml

They explain what every number means and the score almost always reflects the review itself in my experience.

10 -- Flawless Victory (10s are as close to perfect as you will get in a genre or on a platform. Pure, untarnished videogame ecstasy.)

9 -- Superb (9s are a hallmark of excellence. There may be flaws, but they are negligible and won't cause massive damage to what is a supreme title.)

8 -- Great (8s are impressive efforts with a few noticeable problems holding them back. Won't astound everyone, but is worth your time and cash.)

7 -- Good (7s are solid games that definitely have an audience. Might lack replay value, could be too short or there are some hard-to-ignore faults, but the experience is fun.)

6 -- Alright (6s may be slightly above average or simply inoffensive. Fans of the genre should enjoy them a bit, but a fair few will be left unfulfilled.)

5 -- Mediocre (5s are an exercise in apathy, neither Solid nor Liquid. Not exactly bad, but not very good either. Just a bit "meh," really.)

4 -- Below Average (4s have some high points, but they soon give way to glaring faults. Not the worst games, but are difficult to recommend.)

3 -- Poor (3s went wrong somewhere along the line. The original idea might have promise, but in practice the game has failed. Threatens to be interesting sometimes, but rarely.)

2 -- Bad (2s are a disaster. Any good they might have had are quickly swallowed up by glitches, poor design choices or a plethora of other issues. The desperate or the gullible may find a glimmer of fun hidden somewhere in the pit.)

1 -- Epic Fail (1s are the lowest of the low. There is no potential, no skill, no depth and no talent. These games have nothing to offer the world, and will die lonely and forgotten.)

bahumat42:

Worgen:
I can only remember one review that really pissed me off and it wasn't the number that it got, it was one of the things the review mentioned, it said that the game had bad graphics, specifically it said this game had bad graphics
image image
That is a shot from kings bounty: the armored princess, the only way you can say that is bad graphics is if your so shallow you need every little fucken thing to be bump mapped out the ass.

looks like warcraft 3
i kind of want to play it.
hmmmmmm

I loved the game but it doesn't play like an rts, it plays more like the heroes of might and magic series (although I guess the might and magic series plays more like it since I think the original kings bounty came out first... I know what can settle this, to the wikipedia!!.................... yeah, it sounds like kings bounty was first) I guess the best way to show it is to just post a vid


you can find the games on steam or gog.com for cheap, I would suggest getting kingsbounty the legend and then crossworlds (I think cross worlds includes armored princess which is the 2nd game).

oh poor jim, all the rampant stupid has finally broken you! anyway i have to confess a few sins as i usually rate things at about a 7 as an average if it was for something that i would actually pay for. part of this stems from linking game scores to the A-F grade scale from schools where 70 would be passing with a C and 60 would be scraping past with D. However its also stemming from the fact that i dont have all that much cash laying around and I'm not really willing to pay out for something thats only a little above average.

however it seems i have way more functioning brain cells left than most since i'd be pretty damned happy with an 8, taking it as something akin to 'oh hey this was great, but it has some issues that need to be addressed or its concept isn't being used to its full potential' or something along those lines.

I get it. Real review site/magazine should use the whole scale. From 0 to 10. I think russian www.ag.ru does that to a degree, although crazy love towards RPG games cloud the scores.
I just don't trust reviewers who rarely give 6 or less. Why? They lost perspective. 6 is GOOD. Good game, above average. FUN. And I've seen shit games given 6. Games that clearly deserve 1-2 at best.
Destructoid gives more or less fair scores. There are simply far too many stupid kids on the internet.

An example of problem? Call of Duty reviews. Newest iterations shouldn't be given more than 8/10 (same with Uncharted) - why? Because it's as far as one can get without being a revolution in industry or undoubtedly the best in every aspect on the market.
Thing with Cliffy B.? He's a pathetic, disgusting man, devoted of any creativity by now. His latest efforts leave a bad taste. As for Gears 3 it should not be given an 8, 7 at best - on account of having retarded plot in a market where there are shooters with average to good story component.
8 is great, best of the industry and rarely deserved.

I can get the hate when a game that is clearly fun to play and have to obvious flaws is given less than 6. To a degree. But to complain about an 8... You can't complain that your game is NOT a revolution in genre (9) when it's a bloody third installment with largely same mechanics that's been used earlier!

Dear Jim. People are aware of this shit. Most vocal minority are usually retards, who sadly can use internet nowadays.

I think the system that http://www.xbox360achievements.org/ uses is pretty good.

They give the general description like any other reviewer, then summaries on each aspect they think is relevant to it, and calculate an average based on each individual score. It works pretty well in my opinion.

I have a good idea: Get rid of number scores altogether.

Saying one game deserves a higher number for using a certain mechanic, while another deserves a lower number for using another, different mechanic is just stupid. Games are different from one another; They have different stories, mechanics, aesthetics, settings, and soundtracks. Why do we need a panel of other people assigning a game a bunch of numbers, instead of just reading about the features of a game and basing our opinions on those individual features?

Seriously people, numbers say virtually nothing about specific aspects of a game. They're barely helpful.

Worgen:

bahumat42:

Worgen:
I can only remember one review that really pissed me off and it wasn't the number that it got, it was one of the things the review mentioned, it said that the game had bad graphics, specifically it said this game had bad graphics
image image
That is a shot from kings bounty: the armored princess, the only way you can say that is bad graphics is if your so shallow you need every little fucken thing to be bump mapped out the ass.

looks like warcraft 3
i kind of want to play it.
hmmmmmm

I loved the game but it doesn't play like an rts, it plays more like the heroes of might and magic series (although I guess the might and magic series plays more like it since I think the original kings bounty came out first... I know what can settle this, to the wikipedia!!.................... yeah, it sounds like kings bounty was first) I guess the best way to show it is to just post a vid


you can find the games on steam or gog.com for cheap, I would suggest getting kingsbounty the legend and then crossworlds (I think cross worlds includes armored princess which is the 2nd game).

damn you
onto my wishlist thise goes ^^
my wallets gonna die this xmas sale

Rex Dark:
Shouldn't the average be like... 5 or something that?

WHAAAAAT?! are you *censored* *censored* a *censored*?! 5/10 = average omg n00b lol 5/10 = 1/10 = toal bullcrap srsly d00d go *censored* your *censored* *censored* and *censored*!!

that being said, thank god for Jim and the truths he speaks. ^^

Woah, Jim copied the video I made about the same subject a few days ago! =O

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9VolF8ttII&feature=share

I'm glad that i'm not the only one who thinks that fans are incredibly stupid when it comes to good gaming scores.

For a laugh, go watch the pilot episode of Jimquisition, and compare to this one. Master Sterling has hit his stride!

Completely agree.

Over time we've become conditioned to see a 5/10 as terrible, 6/10 as bad, 7/10 as reasonable, 8/10 good, 9/10 great, 10/10 amazing, with anything under a 5 as just not even existing and all being the same level of crap, when really it should be at ~5 that it starts going from reasonble->good.

5 should be the average score really, but nowdays its ~7-8, and it has nothing to do with a higher level of quality amongst the games. Most people wont even consider getting a game that scores less than 7-8 as its seen as bad, maybe even 8.5-9 would be their lower limit.

Really putting a number on a game's rating is pretty nonsensical, but i can understand the need for such a simplistic system. You're definitely right that its us, the gamers, that need to change our perceptions though as its only going to get worse over time, with anything below a 9-9.5 being considered attrocious.

As far as I am concern, Batman is right now... a 0/10, simply because I have not played it, and so is GoW3, because I only have a PC, and PS3, but wasn't greedy enough to purchase 360...

It's not about what game gets a 10, or an 8, people need to understand... our standard had gone up for the reviewers... every time a game earns a "10/10", that game had set a new standard, and all games that came after it will have to top that previous "10'/10" to receive that score... as far as I am concern... shooters (1st,3rd) should have their standard hella high, simply because there are so many of them that break our expectation, it's not giving a game a 8/10 that would get me angry... it's simply the other way around... I think a 10/10 is too easily earned these days... I think when an awesome game comes out now days, it SHOULD be compared to past titles that had set standards higher (not necessary the 10/10s) like telling GoW3 people that "hey! when a character takes a cover, there are different variations of animations, poses in Uncharted(I think U1 already have that, THAT should be the new standard for ALL cover based shooters), but Gears 3 simply uses only ONE so as we play, GoW3 feels robotic when we takes cover, and Uncharted simply feels more organic..." things like that is good enough to put GoW3 down for "less than perfect", and the list goes on and on, think, if FF7 comes out today, Would it still receive a 10/10 today? noway! Xenogears totally have better story/battle system, and Kingdom Hearts have better CGs, and FF10 have the summon creatures as playable characters! (I KNOW, these are ALL square RPG/ARPG titles, but that's the point, the standard had gone up over the years!)

All said from the same person who gave Skyrim a 10/10 despite dull-looking characters and what seems to be gameplay very similar to Oblivion gameplay.

I guess I'm making the foolish mistake of comparing game scores with school grades, with 60% being a failure. For example, your 7/10 score for SR3 made me cringe; however, it was not only because of the score, but also because I haven't expected it to have "repetitive" gameplay with "not a lot there", especially in the main campaign. I'll play it with a different mindset, focusing on the sandbox respect-grinding mayhem and not the cliches and disorganization.

btenkink:
For a laugh, go watch the pilot episode of Jimquisition, and compare to this one. Master Sterling has hit his stride!

I can't even bring myself to watch the first couple again...
But the recent ones, particularly since "The Beautiful Irony of PC Gaming", I'm happy to have them on repeat.

I have no problem understanding the 8=hate from the crowd.

8 is the new 65%. Very average/mediocre games get a 7 nowadays. 9 is good.

It's just the way the gamemags have inflated scores and the readers have adapted.
It's just that Jim Sterling hasn't inflated his own review scores much, so the misunderstanding is bound to happen.

There can be a valid complaint against a sequel getting an 8 (decent game) instead of a 9 (good game), IF a good case can be made for this sequel being better than it's predecessor which got a higher score.
That's consistency and this should be expected from a good reviewer.

This is why more sites need to start using 2-5 more often. They'll give out a 1 if it's completely and totally bad (Big Rigs), but other than that I rarely see anything get below a 6 unless someone links to Destructoid or it's a review of Duke Nukem Forever.

Abandon4093:
Called this years ago.

Plus, the 1-10 scoring system is silly. At the least it should be marked out of 100. There's too much variation between say 80 and 89 for it to be averaged into an 8.

There's too little variation between 80 and 89 to make it worth it. What's the difference between a game that gets an 84 and a game that gets an 85? Nothing? That's what I thought.

people actually pay attention to number scores still? really?

wow ... can we get these people help?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here