Absolutly loved both. :D

Yopaz:

saxman234:

snip

Except that ratings are used as if there is a system which kinda makes it a system. Take Metacritic, it gathers reviews from sites all over and make an estimate. Metacritic have defined games as great when they've got 90+, good if they got 75-89 and so on.

It generally forces those who review games to conform to this system that you claim don't exist. A game isn't "great" if it doesn't get 90+. This system that DOES exist is the reason why there were no bonuses paid for making Fallout New Vegas. It scored below 90. Sure, there are different standards, there are different scores, there's 0-5, there's 0-6, there's 0-100 and 0-40. It's all shoehorned to fit a system that is broken. If you want to deny the existence of Metacritic or GameRankings take that to the thread about conspiracy theories and give people something to laugh about.

Edit: I realize that I came across as rude here. However the point I am trying to make is that scores have been inflated. 7 should be a good score, but it's not. 9 and 10 have lost meaning because they are being thrown out so often that there's really no surprise if a game scores 10. It puts pressure on game reviewers when anything below 8 is utter crap. The review itself is more important, I agree. We should not treat scores as we do, but we do. It's become a mess and there's really no denying that.

The New Vegas score issue is a problem with Bethesda. If they will only give bonuses based on Metacritic, then there is something wrong with Bethesda in this situation.

Looking at destructoid review policies http://www.destructoid.com/the-official-destructoid-review-guide-2011-203909.phtml, and gamespots http://www.gamespot.com/misc/reviewguidelines.html, 7 is still good. We are just misinterpreting the scores thinking that 7 is bad. I agree Metacritic is bad, but at the same time it is our fault for putting so much value on Metacritic (I don't care about 85% of the reviewers, so why should this number matter!)

Some of my favorite games, and I am sure some of your favorite games did not get 9/10 from every outlet. I loved Deadly Premonition, and IGN gave that game a 2. I do think 10 has lost meaning, but I don't think anything is deserving of a perfect score. Maybe we are just spoiled with great games right now and we have to decide what to spend our time on!

The jarring contrast of Yahtzee's was clever and funny, but the bluntness of Jim's really spoke to me. Every word was steeped in his frustration and I felt it.

I too work with the public (though in a completely different context) and I know what it's like to be faced with a wall of unpleasable, mercurial idiots who don't even know enough to form their own opinion on something and instead parrot someone else's words like drunks singing doggerel. I empathize completely. If you need an Internet hug, I'm here. (If you need a beer I'm a thousand miles away, so go to the fridge and get it yerself.)

Yahtzee, you made me laugh.

You seem a little angry, Jim. Not that I blame you.

Jim, change it to a 6 just to piss everyone off.

saxman234:

Yopaz:

saxman234:

snip

Except that ratings are used as if there is a system which kinda makes it a system. Take Metacritic, it gathers reviews from sites all over and make an estimate. Metacritic have defined games as great when they've got 90+, good if they got 75-89 and so on.

It generally forces those who review games to conform to this system that you claim don't exist. A game isn't "great" if it doesn't get 90+. This system that DOES exist is the reason why there were no bonuses paid for making Fallout New Vegas. It scored below 90. Sure, there are different standards, there are different scores, there's 0-5, there's 0-6, there's 0-100 and 0-40. It's all shoehorned to fit a system that is broken. If you want to deny the existence of Metacritic or GameRankings take that to the thread about conspiracy theories and give people something to laugh about.

Edit: I realize that I came across as rude here. However the point I am trying to make is that scores have been inflated. 7 should be a good score, but it's not. 9 and 10 have lost meaning because they are being thrown out so often that there's really no surprise if a game scores 10. It puts pressure on game reviewers when anything below 8 is utter crap. The review itself is more important, I agree. We should not treat scores as we do, but we do. It's become a mess and there's really no denying that.

The New Vegas score issue is a problem with Bethesda. If they will only give bonuses based on Metacritic, then there is something wrong with Bethesda in this situation.

Looking at destructoid review policies http://www.destructoid.com/the-official-destructoid-review-guide-2011-203909.phtml, and gamespots http://www.gamespot.com/misc/reviewguidelines.html, 7 is still good. We are just misinterpreting the scores thinking that 7 is bad. I agree Metacritic is bad, but at the same time it is our fault for putting so much value on Metacritic (I don't care about 85% of the reviewers, so why should this number matter!)

Some of my favorite games, and I am sure some of your favorite games did not get 9/10 from every outlet. I loved Deadly Premonition, and IGN gave that game a 2. I do think 10 has lost meaning, but I don't think anything is deserving of a perfect score. Maybe we are just spoiled with great games right now and we have to decide what to spend our time on!

I don't think you understand me here, because I am not really disagreeing with you. I completely agree. There are tons of games getting high scores that I don't really like. Does the metacritic rating matter? Not at all. Is it a system that we have to live with? Yes, yes it is. It's not supposed to be used like that, but sadly it is. It doesn't matter if GameSpot or Destructoid consider 7/10 good, but flawed when the system they have to work with, Metacritic, thinks otherwise. They give the game 7/10 the game will show up as yellow as in below average. It's bullshit, it shouldn't be like this, but can you really deny that it is like this?

When I visit the store page on Steam I get to see the score from Metacritic. Not from Destructoid, not from GameSpot, Not The Escapist, not IGN. Metacritic. The score that a game gets on Metacritic matters. Not because the score actually gives us any kind of information, but because it shows us the general opinion and because we translate it by Metacritics standards of good and bad. Deny this if you will, it doesn't change much.

Holy ****, the GTA V review on Gamespot now has over 19000 comments, White Guy Defence Force go home.

The number dropped by around 200 at some point, either the comment system is bugging out under the pressure or the mods have been on a killing spree.

Matthi205:
There is a way around that:
There are parts of a game you can not quantify and asses objectively - such as story and writing, or characters. What one can do, however, is quantify and score parts of a game that can be assessed in such a way - those being graphics, how structurally sound the game is (how little bugs it has), how big the variety of weapons and enemies is, how well it performs on low-end hardware, how many options there are in the options menu and if the FoV is adjustable.
These could easily be calculated down to 1/10 to 10/10 scores each (don't do an average score at the end of the review, it makes no actual sense).

How do we quantify the more subjectively judged parts of the game? Simple, we don't. We write down, with the help of others, what biases we have (At the start of the review of course), and then proceed by writing down exactly what we think about those parts of the game. Then, continuing along and writing down how well we think the individual elements of the game fit together and what emotions they evoked in us. After all of this, we analyse how we think about the overall game aesthetic the game produces through all of its elements in combination, and how this aesthetic differs from similar games in the genre. And in the end, we write the summary, summarising in a few brief sentences what we think of the game and who we feel this game will be most enjoyed by.

1: Your suggested system is more than less our current one. And it does not combat score inflation, nor set artistic value more in focus.

2: Story, writing, characters, plot, narrative, ....and whatever are already been objectified. There already a guide to do all this right (I know exeptions exist to every rule).

Yopaz:

saxman234:

Yopaz:

snip

Edit: I realize that I came across as rude here. However the point I am trying to make is that scores have been inflated. 7 should be a good score, but it's not. 9 and 10 have lost meaning because they are being thrown out so often that there's really no surprise if a game scores 10. It puts pressure on game reviewers when anything below 8 is utter crap. The review itself is more important, I agree. We should not treat scores as we do, but we do. It's become a mess and there's really no denying that.

snip

I don't think you understand me here, because I am not really disagreeing with you. I completely agree. There are tons of games getting high scores that I don't really like. Does the metacritic rating matter? Not at all. Is it a system that we have to live with? Yes, yes it is. It's not supposed to be used like that, but sadly it is. It doesn't matter if GameSpot or Destructoid consider 7/10 good, but flawed when the system they have to work with, Metacritic, thinks otherwise. They give the game 7/10 the game will show up as yellow as in below average. It's bullshit, it shouldn't be like this, but can you really deny that it is like this?

When I visit the store page on Steam I get to see the score from Metacritic. Not from Destructoid, not from GameSpot, Not The Escapist, not IGN. Metacritic. The score that a game gets on Metacritic matters. Not because the score actually gives us any kind of information, but because it shows us the general opinion and because we translate it by Metacritics standards of good and bad. Deny this if you will, it doesn't change much.

I am not sure how much pressure all reviewers have for inflating scores. I don't think any good reviewer will admit that they inflate their scores to meet the public's view. I think we just have differing views on what the problem is. We both agree that Metacritic is not a good system, but I think it is also consumers expecting that every game they are hyped about should get a 9/10 and then get angry when it does not get that. Or worse, they refuse to buy a game they want because it only gets a 7.5 from some reviews even though if they read the text they would find out that the game is everything that they wanted. Maybe there have been more high scores recently, or maybe we just see the high scores since the usual high profile games such as CoD, Mario, Assassins Creed are each time pretty good games (maybe not to my taste but still good to most people/reviewers opinion). I don't know if there is statistics for game review scores over time or if that would even tell us anything useful, maybe games are just getting better and more games do deserve a 9.

Fuck yeah, Jim, fuck yeah. Yahtzee offers us a smile and a laugh while you offer us sermons of brilliance. Truly you are our shepherd and we are your flock.

Thank god for you.

'wow Jim was pissed' Is what I'd say if I didn't under stand why. But I do, the idiots the whine about 'non conformist' scoring need to stop breathing if they don't under stand 1) one point means nothing, or 2)people have different tastes.

I'd say they need to grow up, but we all know that's never gonna happen.

and Yahtzee, that was gold :3

Absolutely smashing, Yathzee, a true keeper!
Jim: Good show too.

Jim, I'm not sure if you're aware. You just let a Troll Gang rile you up.

GTA V was targeted because of the large number of people interested in it.

I'm not talking about people who just happen to have a different option, and are belligerent.
The ones targeting you were the Andy Kaufman variety. They're doing it just to grief you.
They think it's funny, and the belligerent gamer mentally only seems to fuel their fun.

I'm not guessing at this ether. One of the Trolls is a malicious stalker troll.
He's harassed game reviewers before, and is apart of a fairly large gang.
When I pointed out one of his alt accounts was probably his he decided to stalk me.
Ironically, this gives me access to his activity, and gave me a view of his gangs harassment of you.

There are countermeasures to reduce these kinds of people, but that would be a very long and involved post.
General rule of thumb is to recognize them, and not engage. That's what they want.

Unfortunately gamers are a target rich environment for them.

Yahtzee had me grinning like a maniac during his fast paced sections, and Jim summed up the big problems with the reveiw reactions in a wonderfully direct manner.

There are a number of things I find odd about the concept of "ludonarrative dissonance."

Leaving aside the fact that most of those games make the dissonant behaviors completely optional (so if you think the character is inconsistent, it's all too often because you're choosing to play them that way), there's also the fact that most of the critics complaining about "ludonarrative dissonance" are the artsy types interested in "The Human Condition" and verisimilitude... and yet the dissonance could easily be interpreted as the inconsistencies, hypocrisies, and hidden traits that real people have.

A lot of people DO act different in conversations (cutscenes) then they act when it comes time to actually do stuff (gameplay), and conveniently overlook past events and actions when they discuss their moral codes and their worldview. It's how people are, and it's one of the most interesting things you can explore in character drama.

Probably the best Rhymedown on the series so far... all the kudos for both of you.

A had to laugh at that last line in Jim's poem. I guess that's one of the arguments that the fanboys are pulling out, eh? "This part of the game isn't bad, because it's satire"?

In any case, I agree that the scoring system really has lost all sense of meaning, where 9s and 10s are constantly handed out so you get the feeling that anything less than a 8.5 isn't even worth bothering with. I mean, you're allowed to not like someone's else's opinion on your favorite game, but calm the fuck down, people. We're allowed to not think your favorite game is as perfect as you think it is (also remembering that many of the whiners haven't even played the damn thing to form their own perfect opinion of it anyway).

Thank god for you, Jim.

Oh and Ben, that was amazing too. Game devs need to make sure that the gameplay and storytelling aren't at odds with each other to be taken seriously. That said, there ARE benefits in just losing your rag in a sandbox game without having to deal with the consequences...

"Fuck you for that, and fuck you for this" sounds like the start of my new favorite 'I'm breaking up with you' poem.

I love how many games the LND bit could work with. Pretty much most sandboxes, really.

Goliath100:

templar1138a:
Personally, I find Yahtzee's method of reviewing to be the most informative: Avoid numbers and ranks and stick to summarizing the central gameplay elements, the mood, the difficulty curve, and the writing (if applicable).

Not having score is the optimal solution, but is that realistic? There is no way everyone would drop the score, and as humans, we like to organize things.

I think the biggest issue you'd run into if the scores were abolished would be that a lot of people wouldn't bother looking up reviews at all. How many of the people in uproar over a 9/10 do you think actually read the review and didn't just skip to the end for a numeric representation of a personal opinion about a complex experience?

EDIT: I should say "usually" complex experience because while a lot of games give you both pros and cons to weigh into your opinion there are certainly games that don't deserve/need much time to make up your mind.

OT: So at least Saints Row has always been a lot more coherant in its narrative and gameplay compared to recent GTA titles, as strange as that can be to believe.

Bothe excellent poems, Yahtzee and Jim! Jim came firing out of the gate at those unpleaseable fanbois who can't take criticism of any form, and Yahtzee dazzled us all with his take ludonaruto disasterporn, or whatever it's called. Can the Escapist have a theme week around that? Have Bob give his $0.02 on it in The Big Picture, they could rip on it in Critical Miss, get the LRR crew to write a sketch ripping on it, that sort of thing.

Evonisia:
All the GTA fans and their crazy demands for perfect scores, unfortunately you got the bile Jim but at least you could make that poem as a result. Luckily for Yahtzee he can avoid this because Zero Punctuation has only given out a score rating once, and it was a joke.

I forgot which game it was, but he gave it a 4, "as in 'FOURK YOU!'"

Jandau:
One of the best Rhymedowns to date. Yahtzee's explanation of LND is spot on. That's why I always liked Saint's Row more than other similar games - the main character is in the goofy psycho mode even during the story segments, to the point where others start pointing out that he's a sociopath at best and a monster at worst.

I thought he was more of a "puckish rogue", but tomato/to-mah-to.

Darth_Payn:

Evonisia:
All the GTA fans and their crazy demands for perfect scores, unfortunately you got the bile Jim but at least you could make that poem as a result. Luckily for Yahtzee he can avoid this because Zero Punctuation has only given out a score rating once, and it was a joke.

I forgot which game it was, but he gave it a 4, "as in 'FOURK YOU!'"

Might have been the mailbag zp after the Smash Bros critique.

Oh, he also gave Wolfenstein(remake) 2 stars (Love that review. Impressive insight within the limits of limerick structure)

I'm calling it: best Rhymedown Spectacular yet, and that's saying something.

Yahtzee's was hilarious, mostly because it's completely true.

Jim: 9/10

Darth_Payn:

Evonisia:
All the GTA fans and their crazy demands for perfect scores, unfortunately you got the bile Jim but at least you could make that poem as a result. Luckily for Yahtzee he can avoid this because Zero Punctuation has only given out a score rating once, and it was a joke.

I forgot which game it was, but he gave it a 4, "as in 'FOURK YOU!'"

Oh I remember that, but then again it wasn't 4 out of something. In the Wolfenstein review it got 2/5 stars as the final joke/limerick.