Jimquisition: Hate Out Of Ten

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

I agree 100% with Jim on this. It's a problem, and it's freakin' stupid, and it needs to stop.

THIS is why I don't use number scales when saying how much I like or dislike something. Numbers are objective, opinions are subjective. You CAN'T apply an objective number to a subjective opinion, that's just stupid.

I much prefer my own personal scale of "Avoid-Decent-Solid-Fantastic". Or, if really pressed, an A-B-C-D-E-F scale.

....Sadly, my best friend is an engineer, and thus demands number scores, no matter how much I try to make him understand.

Lastly....That bit at the end was hilarious. I cracked up as soon as the comment was shown. To be honest, I think Jim took it really well. I was expecting more of a full on rage-out that that. XD

I almost never watch Jimquisition because Jim is quite annoying. But today i laughed at his aristocratic ascent when he was reading quotes! It was rather amusing. But, Jim is still an obnoxious manbearpig who needs to cut down on his cussing.

I do agree with Jim for once..... Tens are meaningless nowadays. No game is perfect!!!!!
I guess that people just need to see that number to justify spending all that mony and time on a game.

I just got back from Youtube. You know what I saw? Commenters going absolutely apeshit over the 8.5 Assassin's Creed: Revelations got from IGN. I saw the like/dislke bar, over half of it was red. I was like "Wow, IGN must've bashed this game something good, and I liked AC2 a lot". An 8.5 is a great score, I'm more pissed about Dungeon Siege III getting an 8(so boring, online co-op pointless) and Lord of the Rings: War in the North getting a 5.5(I had a lot of fun with that one, and it stayed amazingly true to the source material of not only the movies, but the books too) from Game Informer. Just, wow. Jim you are so right that this must STOP!

Damn it Jim, I love you. I love you so fucking much.

You're like a big, angry, sentient, and highly intelligent teddy bear. A teddy bear who knows what's up and can verbally kick the shit out of those who possess lesser faculties.

Also, I wish you would increase the amount of time you talk directly to the camera in your videos. Your facial expressions, body language, and comedic timing are perfect. They're 10/10! And anyone who says otherwise is a dick and I will not read their articles anymore etc. etc. :)

One last thing: I've watched all of your videos. They're so excellent that I now read your articles as well. I didn't know who you were before you showed up on this site, but now that I do....

Well, let's just say that if I believed in a god, I would thank him/her/it for you.

Finally there's been an episode that I actually enjoyed again.

It's been a while... All that stuff about preowned games and kirby and GTA and whatever else I couldn't give a shit about, but human idiocy is a real hot button.


I give this episode an 8/10.

Jim Sterling is the boot jammed in the internet's ass. Awesome video as usual man!

Who fucking cares? Seriously, this has gotten ridiculous. Between the bitching about scores and those bitching at those who score bitch, video game score reviews get entirely too much attention and press. People like Jim Sterling make it a big deal, causing developers and publishers to actually notice such things.

You're actually claiming that people like Jim are equally responsible for all of this? Are you saying that developers only started taking interest in these reviews and their scores because of the handful of people like Jim, and not the thousands of complainers, the reviewers, and Metacritic?

Oh and, you know, the fact that higher reviews often have a direct effect on sales? Yeah, I would say that one is pretty darn important. I think the link between a high score on Metacritic and sales has had just a tad more of an effect on these publishers than Jim.

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

Yep, I've commented on this before. With the raising standards for the gaming industry a lot of the games we're seeing right now should be rated 5s as they represent an industry standard for AAA titles.

I personally think Jim is wrong though, and the industry has a lot to do witht the problem, simply put they buy reviews, albiet indirectly usually. The guys doing the reviewes are told by their publishers to rate high or a publisher might not want to buy more advertising space which is how they make their money. As a result we've seen review scores creeping up, and things being rated on more or less a 3 point scale instead of a 10 point scale with 8 being like scoring a 1 out of 3, and anything below that scoring increasingly tiny percentages of a single star.

Honestly, a lot of these games that have been getting 8s have sort of been being panned if you read between the lines. Simply put with the marketing money being put into something like "Gears Of War 3" your not going to see many professional reviewers calling something like that average or below average, pretty much a deritivite engine based shooter showing off the latest graphical embellishments but otherwise delivering nothing paticularly compelling since just about everything about it is increasingly generic, especially given the imitators it's been inspiring. A lot of people who are invested in this kind of game, and want to see some validation of their interests get irritated when they see a bit of a snub coming out in the numbers... and really that's what it is from many sources, there is no way around that, simply because of how top heavy the reviews have gotten. If I'm scoring 1 out of 3 and I say something gets a 1, and everyone knows to take the text with a grain of salt... yeah... that does mean something.

Truthfully I think we need to see reviews balance out and use more of the scale, even if it will cause some fanboy backlash during a period of adjustment. The simple fact that something like "Gears Of War 3" is derivitive, and very average overall, kind of shows how far gaming has come.... and remember it's relative, I mean if one argues that all of these games Uncharted, Zelda, Gears 3, etc... are really good, and they represent most of whatt's on the market, then this sets the line for what the new "5" is. You should expect games like these with the current technology... simply exploiting the tech (which is what these games do, above and beyond anything) doesn't really mean much.

I'll also be painfully blunt, for those seething about my comments on Gears Of War 3... most people who ARE GoW fans will themselves point out that the storyline is pretty lame. Indeed even the fans spend a lot of time making fun of characters like Dom from the series. The same can also be said of other games like "Uncharted 3" which is a giant rip off of the whole "Indiana Jones" vibe that doesn't really have much unique going for it, using very stereotypical characters and set pieces. When you consider that the technology being used is par for the course for current systems... we're seeing so many games on this level it's pretty obvious anyone can do it if they spend the time and resources, you have to look at other aspects of the games and that includes things like the writing. You can't sell "our game has super graphics" as a point about why it's special when every AAA title has super graphics. Right now the standard is great tech, lame and uncreative writing, and "boxed" engines/control systems.

Basically fanboys tend to be aware of the failings of their games of choice, up until it comes time for someone else to rate them. It's fine to write 20 pages ranting about Dom and what a joke the Gears Of War storyline/characterizations are, but if someone else actually says the same thing and considers that for rating it... well, being treated like a crime.

Yeah, it's getting pretty sad. I saw someone complaining about Skyrim not getting higher than a 9 on Gamespot. They said that Gamespot received more "compensation" from Dark Souls and thus a higher score (9.5). WTF?!

Soviet Heavy:
Good points. And on the Uncharted front, allow me to mention once more the insanity of the G4 review by Adam Sessler. A 4/5 and the comment board went nuts.

Here's his response to the comments, if you haven't already watched it.


After watching that video, my respect for Sessler increase. That man deserve a steak dinner.

Lots of good points, but I do need to point something out. In the frame of reference of most people reading reviews, 8 out of 10 is a B-. That's slightly better then an average, phone it in slackers grade. And I'm not totally aware of where grade inflation is these days.Demanding perfect scores is ridiculous, but using a standardized metric, review scores arn't THAT bad.

Game review scores aren't university/school scores.

That being said, I would watch a series where all Jim did was read user emails and comments in that voice hahahah.

ALSO, I must draw attention to again, Reviews on the Run which sees "5" as average, not 8 or whatnot.

OH and sorry Cliffy, but Gears 3 is not better than Gears 2.

Thanks for that, been saying the same thing for ages, I put my numbers closer to 5 for playable but flawed and 7 for great so I should probably fear for attempts on my life should I ever review a game.

If the awesome things that could happen in life were reviewed then "Everyone got jet-packs and we had a super awesome party in the sky all bloody week creating a new global holiday that led to a Utopian sky city that united our cause and advanced our civilization" is the event we are looking at for an 8/10, hell I'm pretty sure there is way better then that. The above is probably a ridiculous 6.5/10 because the return of magic didn't happen and no deities came in to play.

Come to think of it... They wouldn't have updated the mechanics very much and jet-packs are pretty gimmick at this point so we'll call it 4/10 first and then a we'll call it a day after that.
8/10 is twice as good as holidays, parties, floating cities, and jet-packs.
Get it straight people.

Yeah, number scores are pretty stupid. Boiling down an entire experience and opinion to a number is insane but most people don't want to sit and read the whole review.

Though the real pain in the ass is the decimal systems. Just what the hell is the difference between a 8.5 and a 9? What's the .5 of a difference?

That's a very downward spiraling train of logic there, the next step is criticizing 10%, then 15%, ultimately culminating at the advocation of binary scoring systems.

I wanna find the guy who wrote that comment about reviews differing from the rest of the community and wail on his nads

I think that reviewers should move to a system with max on 20 or just stop giving a number, because a number without the text explaining it is nothing. It's the text that is the actual review not the number.

Decided years ago that the Text of a review was more important than the straight Numerical Score and the text of Eurogamers "controversial" review of Uncharted 3 pretty much mirrored my experience with the game.

Basically "Damn this is fun and pretty to look at, also very well written, too bad the bits and pieces are starting to feel a little old and Uncharted's heavily scripted style in an era of Player Agency is also starting to show its age."

In other notes, I always figured an "out of 5" with no halvsies was the best scoring method.
0 = Oh god stay away, 1 = Might have some redeeming value, 2 = for fans and the hardcore only, 3 = Generally good and fun but doesn't go anywhere special, 4 = Pretty damn good, can't go wrong with this, 5 = As good as you could expect it to be, buy it and love it.

Don't forget you 9.5 for MW3 F**T***. Fucking reverse Troll.



Lots of good points, but I do need to point something out. In the frame of reference of most people reading reviews, 8 out of 10 is a B-. That's slightly better then an average, phone it in slackers grade. And I'm not totally aware of where grade inflation is these days.Demanding perfect scores is ridiculous, but using a standardized metric, review scores arn't THAT bad.

Game review scores aren't university/school scores.

That being said, I would watch a series where all Jim did was read user emails and comments in that voice hahahah.

ALSO, I must draw attention to again, Reviews on the Run which sees "5" as average, not 8 or whatnot.

OH and sorry Cliffy, but Gears 3 is not better than Gears 2.

In theory sure, game reviews arn't school. But regardless of the hypothetical Games as a medium with critical consideration are extremely young. The frame of reference most redily translates to grades. I know that when I hear "80 out of 100" my first thought is B-. Ive seen plenty of reviews that do translate a percentage score into a letter grade and, truth be told, it makes sense. Most big budget games at least put the basic amount of effort to make a game playable and kinda enjoyable, and that minimum is well deserving of a C-, or 70. A grade-like evaluation would be an excellent standard and honestly, the only problem with an 8 out of 10 being merely okay is the fact that not everyone agrees on the metric. And in fact, when looking at reviews of other games, translation to a letter grader makes sense. 10 is the pinnacle, while 9 is excellent with minimal shortcomings. 8 is a solid but unremarkable effort, while 7 is where you begin to Phone it in. 6 is quite poor, and below that it merely the degree to which the game failed. If you look at the context of these reviews, generally, a letter grade makes perfect sense.

Don't get me wrong, complaining when a game gets an 8 is childish. The nature of reviews is that there is going to be a significant standard deviation amongst reviewers, and even the greatest game ever getting an 8 is a perfectly reasonable score, and not an outlier. But complaining that a person thinks of an 8 out of 10 translates to a B- is like complaining that some crazy idiot thinks that 120 is fat when in reality, they measure weight in Stones. What we need is a standardized metric, and honestly, grades are a pretty good one.

Turning an overall experience into a number isn't exactly the biggest problem here, it only becomes a problem when its linked with our most natural desire to compete "my stuff" with "your stuff".

This whole issue can be summarized by saying that these crazy people are just rabid fanboys of a particular series and need that super high number to justify to their peers that their game is better then everybody elses. And that somehow "my" games metacritic score of 93, makes "my" game "BETTER" then my friends games metacritic score of 91, when in fact what it really means is that they are BOTH really really really good games.

Notice how this thing NEVER happens when it comes to new IP's? Its because there arent any crazy fan boys for the series yet.

Now we have ex-game of the year "VS." another ex-game of the year, and so on, and competition gets into the point of losing perspective where all these people want is for "their favorite game" to end up with a higher score then everybody elses favorite game. This, of course, also applies to developers.

I don't know. Personally, a video game score never really meant anything to me. I based whether or not I would buy a game on magazine articles and gameplay footage. If I've looked at the available preview material and decided that I want to buy a game, there isn't a single thing a review score can do to change my mind. The way I see it: who cares if the world at large likes this game? I'm sure I'm going to love it and that's all that matters to me.

people need to realize when it comes to the numbers that it is not really based on the whole history of gaming. games are generally compared to games on the same platform, released in similar time periods. this is why a nintendo DS game can score the same as BF3 or skyrim. we are not comparing Doom to MW3. just because a FPS 10 years ago scores a 9 and from the same reviewer MW3 scores a 9 does not make then equal

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

yes, but humans are illogical. don't expect to reason with any of them.

So Cliffy B got butthurt over Gears 3 not getting a perfect score. I guess this means he's not a very good developer.

The phrase, "a good artist is his/her harshest critic" applies to game developers as well.

Time was when games were usually graded on a 100 point score, and nobody ever got a 100/100. Half-Life the first got in the mid-90s. WoW got in the low 90s. We knew that anything in the 90s was a leader in its respective genre.

Then people went to the 10 point scale, and then the 5 point scale, and when 5/5 is translated to a 100 point scale on metacritic, well that's typically 100 points unless some mathematical normalization takes into account score inflation.

Anyway, so here we are. I'll just say 5/5 does not equal 100/100, damn the math. Nothing wrong with 5 point scales, just that a 5 isn't a 100.

Honestly, I don't get the "hate out of ten" logic. I've seen theses review scores and I was generally happy with them. In the cases of the games that I played, I generally agree with them. People really do need some perspective. Since when did 8/10 become terrible?

This is why I like X-play. They use their whole scale. Most games get a 3/5. Some get 4/5. Great games get 5/5. Hell, they even give out the occasional 1/5. Those are rare. Rarer than 5/5 I think (which were rare), but they were given out. At least, that's how it was back when I watched the show.

Soviet Heavy:
Good points. And on the Uncharted front, allow me to mention once more the insanity of the G4 review by Adam Sessler. A 4/5 and the comment board went nuts.

I've beaten Uncharted 3. I think it's a pretty great game. But it deserved a 4/5. It wasn't quite as solid as Uncharted 2. It was a fair review.

Jim, I give your criticism of this broken fucking review scale an 11/10.

Keep up the good work.

I'm reminded of one of the pieces of hate mail Yahtzee responded to in his "Mailbag Showdown" episode, where he said:

It's worth remembering that all reviews are subjective personal opinions, and if you personally enjoyed a game then they really shouldn't get to you. Unless, of course, there's a despicable little niggling doubt in the back of your mind that maybe you're not having as much fun as you've convinced yourself you're having, which doesn't go away no matter how many times you try to slap it down with the wet flannel of weak excuses..."

I think in those two sentences Yahtzee summed up the mindset of the majority of people who bitch about reviews and review scores. It really is a mentality you'd expect to see on a school playground (and one I confess I engaged in when I was a wee boy) - "my video games are better than your video games! HA HA HA THE GAMES YOU LIKE ARE CRAP BECAUSE SOME TOTAL STRANGER SAID SO!"

Don't like what somebody else said about your favourite game? Grow the fuck up and deal with it.

EDIT: Upon further contemplation, I'd say that "review rage" is yet another manifestation of a wider problem that exists on the internet - the fact that it is almost impossible to have a difference of opinion on just about any topic over the internet without it degenerating into crazed poo-flinging. It would appear that John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory strikes again.

The problem with these retards is that they aren't interested in the review or ANYTHING it's saying. They have no interest in the opinion of the review writer in the first place. Their chain of insane troll logic works like thi:

I am a fan of [insert series here], ergo this series is perfect, otherwise I wouldn't like it. Therefore anyone who claims this game is LESS than perfect is personally attacking and insulting me. And since I am smarter (and have a bigger dick) than everyone else, anyone who disagrees with my view of this game is inherently wrong and therefore should be abused and insulted because they are morons and deserve it.

As you and I and Jim and everyone whose brain is large than a walnut can see, this is fucking retarded. But "fucking retarded" is a pretty good description for half the gaming community these days (disclaimer: hyperbole) so what would you expect?

I thought it has been commonly assume game review scores of 8.8 or lower are below average for a long time now. This mainly because the people who care about game reviews, especially for games they never played, are morons.

Game scores are tricky as its different to rank an experience when games offer so many experiences. Even if 5 were average, what would an average experience in a game be for you? Liking games as a whole, I tend to think an average experiences would be pretty good. But if 6 through 10 were levels of perfection my game score would be hated by the above conformed morons.

If I had to do my own scoring, I half think I just through random numbers with no ratio in place of what they were out of. Just to see peoples reactions are the same. Otherwise, I guess I like the idea that games get rank as:
FUBAR - painful to play
Expendable - waste of time to play, been done better
Disappointing - interesting, but fails to be as good as I expected
Curious - something cool, if it sounds like your thing
Brilliant - a complete success at what it does
Amazing - beyond a success, everyone should play it

I would be alright if "Brilliant" was considered average, if games were that good on average, but it would be shocking if an average number of games got "Curious."

Last game I made got a 5. I... would.. fucking.. kill... for a 7, so fuck anyone who bitches about an 8

Don't bother me. I'm currently defending a reviewer for rating Assassin's Creed Revelations a 7/10. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OxANJjLSaw

I have seen so many lackluster, mediocre games get 10/10 reviews that they mean nothing at all to me. I'm much more interested in a game that can get an 8 out of 10. First off, it probably means the reviewer took some time to play the game and see what it's about rather than just heap praise to appease touchy publishers and drooling fan-boys. They might be able to tell me something about what's great and what's not-so-good in a game. Because face it, gamers hate bad 8 of 10 reviews, but you can't swing a dead cat on the internet without hitting those same fans complaining about parts of their 10 out of 10 games that they don't like.

Somebody needs to switch to a 2 point, rather than a 10 point scale. 2 would be the new "perfect" all the old 9/10s would get 1, and everything else gets a zero. If that's all the variation you're going to use, why waste all the other numbers?

Really enjoyed this one, it had a real issue and it was funny around the end.
"The whole thank god for me" is Jim's thing I know, but I like to see variety and Jim just having a silent freak out is definitely amusing. Also love the Zelda sound.

I think if I ever start reviewing stuff, I'm just gonna give scores of 1, 2, or 3 based on whether or not said media is worth your time. 3 would be recommended, 2 would be maybe, and 1 would be not recommended. That's it. No half-stars. No percentages. Just good, average, and bad. Maybe even make it a cute visual representation like a traffic light. Want in-depth analysis? Read the text review, goddamnit.

The mentally deficient rabble don't want nuanced x-out-of-10 scores to evoke serious discussion about a game's strengths and shortcomings. They want to see critics groveling at the feet of their favorite IP's. To them, tens out of ten are the confetti thrown at the game's triumphant parade down main street. I honestly hope that anyone who's EVER complained about a 7, 8, or 9 out of 10 gets a swift kick in the ass.

u r awesome. there should be no more numbers, just reviews and opinions

Don't bother me. I'm currently defending a reviewer for rating Assassin's Creed Revelations a 7/10. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OxANJjLSaw


Edit: After watching some of the review, a couple of his points do seem a bit...off. (Like the missions have no context.) But I won't be able to verify or deny those claims until I actually have the game and play it myself.

I think Jim has an excellent point! I recently read a "Guide to VG Scores" on some site, and they said 8's were not worth your time or cash unless you were part of the niche market or a fanboy. The 60 $ that a game is worth should make you choose which games you buy carefully, certainly (more in the cases of inflated prices abroad). That, however, does not justify complaining about a 7.5 onward; really shitty games ACTUALLY get shitty scores. Also, not READING the review leads to a lot of stupidity, and even Yahtzee has mentioned this kind of nonsense in most of his end-year review videos, saying that people can't seem to get through their skull the fact that numbers mean jack-shit and that you can have a less than AAA title and still have more or equal fun to that AAA title. Likewise, AAA does not = perfect or excellent game.

 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
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
Register for a free account here