http://gamingtrend.com
September 23, 2014, 12:43:59 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: OXM and their "10"  (Read 2521 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Knightshade Dragon
Administrator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 21057



View Profile WWW
« on: April 12, 2006, 03:16:17 AM »

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2718&Itemid=2


This is precisely what is wrong with this industry.  Read this article and then contemplate how they can, on one hand say that the game is a perfect example of 'next gen', and then at the end say that it is not perfect but should get a perfect 10, even if they rescored it.

There are clipping issues, too much advertising, spotty and inconsitent AI, repeating audio like no tomorrow, and a relatively horrible online system that comes with extra lag free of charge.   Does this sound like a 10 to you?  Incompetence reigns supreme at OXM apparently...but that is just my opinion.  What the fuck do I know, right?
Logged

Ron Burke
EiC, Director of Gaming Trend
Gamertag:
Gaming Trend
PS3 Tag: GamingTrend
whiteboyskim
Senior Staff Writer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7848


Hard partier


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 12, 2006, 03:24:56 AM »

Not incompetence. Corporate ownership masquerading as "objective journalism."
Logged

Behold the glory of my new blog!
Filmmaking is vision plus faith plus balls, all 3 of which Hollywood knows little about.
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 12, 2006, 03:26:15 AM »

It's funny that when games get 5/5 stars it doesn't sound as wierd as getting a "10."  At least to me.  I agree that OXM is pretty much a rag at this point.  And there is no way I would give FN rnd 3 a 10.
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
Knightshade Dragon
Administrator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 21057



View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 12, 2006, 03:26:53 AM »

Quote from: "denoginizer"
It's funny that when games get 5/5 stars it doesn't sound as wierd as getting a "10."  At least to me.  I agree that OXM is pretty much a rag at this point.  And there is no way I would give FN rnd 3 a 10.


I'm just so tempted to write in....I just don't wanna be 'that guy', ya know?
Logged

Ron Burke
EiC, Director of Gaming Trend
Gamertag:
Gaming Trend
PS3 Tag: GamingTrend
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 12, 2006, 03:37:14 AM »

Kinighshade I just read your Outfit review.  Good job.  Personally it is one of my favorite 360 games so far.  I respect your opinions, but I'd have rated it a little higher.   :wink:
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
Knightshade Dragon
Administrator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 21057



View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 12, 2006, 04:16:40 AM »

Totally understand that denoginizer.  I'm calling it like I saw it. smile
Logged

Ron Burke
EiC, Director of Gaming Trend
Gamertag:
Gaming Trend
PS3 Tag: GamingTrend
Jumangi
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1797



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 12, 2006, 04:27:21 AM »

Well I'll be the person who says I pretty much agree with her. I mean chill out people its just a game and its one magazine's opinion on a certain game. Big deal. People act like its the the first time its ever been done or something. EGM reviewers have given games in their magazines a ten before  and I don't remeber poeple getting in a huff before, and CGW has givien 5/5 like a previous post said. Also she made this comment.

Quote
*By the way, if we had reviewed either Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory or Halo/Halo2 with our new scoring system, they’d be 10s, natch.


Give it s rest people. I know there are people who would consider MGS 2 or FFVII "perfect ten" games when I wouldn't. Its diffrent opinion's people.
Logged
WinoMcCougarstein
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2675



View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 12, 2006, 04:28:05 AM »

Someone claiming EA paid them off in 3...2...1...   :lol:


You know though, it wouldnt really surprise me.  It seems like certain places give a review to a game that just doesnt deserve it.  Gamespot giving Blitz the League an 8.6 after running ads for the game for about a week was a little fishy.  Of course, IGN seems to do this a lot as well.  Who knows.
Logged

Farscry
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4004



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: April 12, 2006, 04:47:01 AM »

Quote from: "Jumangi"
Well I'll be the person who says I pretty much agree with her. I mean chill out people its just a game and its one magazine's opinion on a certain game.


The only problem with that approach is that if games with very strong flaws start receiving 10's, then, well, ratings stop really meaning anything.  The point of reviews is to serve as a recommendation for purchasing something, weighing the pros and cons, giving a score that sort of sums that up, and then detailing that in the review's text.

Granted, I'd never trust a print magazine that's "official" for a console as an unbiased source of a review.

In fact, for that matter, I don't trust most paid media outlets for unbiased reviews, especially since it's obvious how deeply EA is padding everyone's pockets these days to get good reviews.

I'd rather trust sites like GT, GWJ, and other sites by regular guys like me who like games and are going to look with a critical eye to weigh the fun factor with everything else and give fair assessments.  I don't even need a friggin' number score, because that doesn't mean anything.  I need a detailed review that tells me what they liked and what they didn't like and why, then I can draw my own conclusion from that.

But unfortunately, the sad fact is that far too many people just glance at the numbers to see if a game is "good" or not.
Logged

Purge - You have unlocked an Achievement!
You are now of the rank reprobate
Ridah
Senior Staff Writer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5530



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: April 12, 2006, 05:16:26 AM »

All of this just comes to show that the best review is a review that does not give a score. Knightshade, the fact that you give games scores and then bash another publication for giving a score that you disagree with is contradictory. If you want to take a stand, remove the numerical scoring system GT uses and hope other publications begin to follow suit. I used to feel the same way about many publications giving games perfect scores when the game was far from perfect, but then I came to the realization that the numerical score is really only the most basic generalization of what to expect from the game. So while some of the technical aspects may be marred in the game as you've pointed out, the game itself may really be the perfect boxing game (in comparison to the others that are available).

When you think about it, there's no such thing as 100% perfect, there's always a tiny, insignificant flaw somewhere in the game, so if you can't ever rate a game perfectly how do you judge how far it is from perfect? The point being: Ignore the score and read the review for the real lowdown, then you be the judge.
Logged

Sean Lama
Senior Staff Editor, GamingTrend
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: April 12, 2006, 07:30:03 AM »

I understand that there has to be some score or rating given.  Like it or not, many people won't come to a review site if they can't see some type of at-a-glance rating.  I've always thought Siskel and Ebert did it best.  "Thumbs Up," or "Thumbs Down".  Either buy the game or don't buy it.  Then read the review for why the author felt that way.
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
EddieA
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6922


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: April 12, 2006, 07:34:50 AM »

If I had to review what I consider the best game ever made, Final Fantasy X, I could find several flaws with it - the combat is generally easy and requires little thought, you fight the same enemies over and over again, etc.  Would it make any sense for me to give the game any less than a perfect 10, though?  The same is true for Kingdom Hearts - the game has some severe flaws, but I loved playing it, and would easily score it a 9.  Reviewing games shouldn't be, IMO, an exact science, e.g. -.5 points for a bad camera, +2 points for a good control scheme, etc.  A good game can transcend its flaws, and still be great fun.
Logged

"Why did the chicken cross the Mobius strip?  To get to the same side."  - The Big Bang Theory
WinoMcCougarstein
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2675



View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 12, 2006, 07:54:14 AM »

Quote from: "denoginizer"
I understand that there has to be some score or rating given.  Like it or not, many people won't come to a review site if they can't see some type of at-a-glance rating.  I've always thought Siskel and Ebert did it best.  "Thumbs Up," or "Thumbs Down".  Either buy the game or don't buy it.  Then read the review for why the author felt that way.


I like that idea, but I would add a "rent it."  So it is either buy, rent, or pass.
Logged

Canuck
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5474


I live in Japan


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: April 12, 2006, 12:30:37 PM »

Quote from: "Ridah"
All of this just comes to show that the best review is a review that does not give a score. Knightshade, the fact that you give games scores and then bash another publication for giving a score that you disagree with is contradictory. If you want to take a stand, remove the numerical scoring system GT uses and hope other publications begin to follow suit. I used to feel the same way about many publications giving games perfect scores when the game was far from perfect, but then I came to the realization that the numerical score is really only the most basic generalization of what to expect from the game. So while some of the technical aspects may be marred in the game as you've pointed out, the game itself may really be the perfect boxing game (in comparison to the others that are available).

When you think about it, there's no such thing as 100% perfect, there's always a tiny, insignificant flaw somewhere in the game, so if you can't ever rate a game perfectly how do you judge how far it is from perfect? The point being: Ignore the score and read the review for the real lowdown, then you be the judge.


Scores are kind of arbitrary aren't they?  How often are we guilty of just looking at the number and not even bothering to read the review.  Over at The Wargamer none of their reviews have scores and you have to read through the whole review to see what type of game it is.  Kind of good and frustrating at the same time smile
Logged
Zarkon
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4848


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: April 12, 2006, 12:53:26 PM »

Quote from: "Jumangi"
Well I'll be the person who says I pretty much agree with her. I mean chill out people its just a game and its one magazine's opinion on a certain game. Big deal. People act like its the the first time its ever been done or something. EGM reviewers have given games in their magazines a ten before  and I don't remeber poeple getting in a huff before, and CGW has givien 5/5 like a previous post said. Also she made this comment.

Quote
*By the way, if we had reviewed either Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory or Halo/Halo2 with our new scoring system, they’d be 10s, natch.


Give it s rest people. I know there are people who would consider MGS 2 or FFVII "perfect ten" games when I wouldn't. Its diffrent opinion's people.


Here's the problem with that way of thinking.  And this isn't bashing you, Jumangi, by any means.

We, as in Gaming Journalism, are trying to make baby steps towards being actual mainstream journalism.  And why not, when gaming brings in more money than the entire movie industry, and has since 2000 or 2001?  One of the hottest topics right now is the fact that gaming journalists are, by and large, corporate whores, give or take.  

You can't bash a game in a preview without worrying about losing advertising or the ability to get games from that publisher to review or preview in the future.

You can't bash a game in a review without worrying about the same.

Granted, we're talking about the 'Big Outfits' here, the IGN, OXM, PSM, OPM, Gamespot and G4.  We're not talking about us, EvilAvatar, or even Blues News.  

There's been some serious coverage on the topic (EGM, I believe?) in the past few months, and the concept of an EIC of a major publication going "Geez, people, when did we get soooo incredibly serious about our games?" deserves a solid answer.

That answer is this:  When we began putting text to webpages and magazine copy in an effort to guide consumers in spending their money.

When you put a '10', a 5/5, an A, a 100% or anything PERFECT, or even close to that on a game, you're saying that this is a must own.  You're saying that this game is one of the best things released currently.  

Unfortunately, as Ron stated, Fight Night Round 3 for the Xbox 360 was not one of those games.  Not by a long shot.  Bill Harris over on Dubious Reality ripped the game apart for flaws in the career mode.  Sports Gaming did the same, for much of the same reasons.  The advertising was also heavily mentioned.  The game isn't perfect, it's not even remotely perfect.  On a 20 point scale?  It might deserve an 8.0.  8.5 if you're being generous.  10?  Not hardly.
Logged
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 18538



View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: April 12, 2006, 02:04:47 PM »

The problem, as I see it, is that we want to absorb info and move on. We don't want to read the full review unless the game is a serious maybe.


I WILL OWN --------------| /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Maybe /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ |-------------fah'gedda-bowdit.


Only in the /\/\/\/\ do we really READ the reviews to either confirm which way we go. If a title that sits in the I WILL OWN section and gets super-low scores, it may end up in the maybe or even fah-gedda-bowdit. Conversely we need to see some impressive scores to get a fah-gedda-bowdit to the maybe or I WILL OWN. This is the only time a review is "READ". Otherwise we generally skim.

I keep saying "we", and your own personal experience may differ. I've asked a few other gamers about this and it seems to be accurate. We just don't have time to read 5-10 4 page reviews about a game that we know we WILL, or WILL NOT own.

I'm going to start a suggestion thread in the site feedback to offer some new format changes; it may just cater to what we ultimately want to see.
Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
Farscry
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4004



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: April 12, 2006, 02:26:08 PM »

You know, Purge, one of the rpg fansites I used to read had ratings instead of scores for games. They were things like: "definite buy", "possible purchase", "definite rental", "possible rental", and "don't waste your time" or something very close to that.  I think this was a pretty good system, especially when coupled with well-written balanced reviews.
Logged

Purge - You have unlocked an Achievement!
You are now of the rank reprobate
Jumangi
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1797



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: April 12, 2006, 02:50:52 PM »

Quote from: "Zarkon"

Unfortunately, as Ron stated, Fight Night Round 3 for the Xbox 360 was not one of those games.  Not by a long shot.


Sorry but your the one with flawed thinking. You and Ron are making this comment as if its fact. This is YOUR opinion on the game. Its not universal fact come to by some sort of scientific reasoning. Also so what if some blog ripped the game apart, its the Internet I could find a review on just about any game that rips it apart too even though allot may think its the best title around.

Basically I think EddieA made the best point about this subject. Also The more I think about it the change CGW made to not having a score I think is a good idea. Having all these diffrent ratings(and to be honest Gamingtrend's is one of the stranger ones) should just be removed and the review text itself speak for the quaility of the title or lack there of.
Logged
Zarkon
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4848


View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: April 12, 2006, 02:58:59 PM »

Not fact?

Well, let's look at GameRankings, shall we?

GameRankings has it at an -average- of 86%.  That's a very solid score.  One thing you'll note, by the by, is that our review gave it 85%, which falls squarely into the review average for that title.

It may not be a fact (since nothing in the review world can be), but when you get enough reviews saying the same thing, with one that's saying something quite different, you tend to start to wonder about that one different one.

As far as the no score thing?  I can see the appeal in it, and I know that we have things in the works as far as our own review scores.  

My issue with OXM is less "OMG YOU GAVE IT A 10!" and more the attitude of "It's about a game.  Get over it."  

It may be 'just a game'.  But y'know what?  It's our job to review the games.  No matter what your job is, you should do it professionally and to the best of your ability, otherwise, why bother?

That's one of the things that sticks in my head while I'm here at Gaming Trend.  I'm here, I'm going to do the best job I know how to do and in a professional manner, and I'm going to take pride in my work.
Logged
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15437


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: April 12, 2006, 03:21:27 PM »

Quote
. This is YOUR opinion on the game. Its not universal fact come to by some sort of scientific reasoning.


This line of thinking is very bad.  You can use the subjectivity argument for everything and that dismisses the point of discourse at all.

It's clear that OXM ignored the fact that there are big issues with the game when they gave it a 10.  I've read shockingly bad commentary about how woeful the game is with regard to AI.

The 10 was definitely a ploy to get people to buy the mag. OMG a 10! What got a 10!

The fact that most review sites are in the B range should give us pause.

Sure an individual gamer can rank a game higher than the pack or lower, but a magazine that is supposed to know games in and out should at least be in the ball park.
Logged
Zarkon
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4848


View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: April 12, 2006, 03:28:45 PM »

On the GameRankings page (for those who don't want to click through), 54 reviews were used to get that 86% average.

Of those 54, 1 got 100% (OXM).  21 of them got 90%+.  28 got 80-90% and 4 got 70-80%.  Just thought I should point that out.
Logged
Dreamshadow
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3038


View Profile WWW
« Reply #21 on: April 12, 2006, 03:39:25 PM »

If I ever sit down to write a review and the first thing to my mind is 'What will the publisher think of my review?'  then I have to stop and rethink my whole approach to reviewing.  I've had this happen with several reviews.  Those of us in the games journalism industry have an interesting balance between the consumer and the publisher.  We want the consumer to make the best possible gameplay choices for their money.  We want the publisher to keep sending us titles to review.  We've already seen the kind of questions that get raised when the games journalism industry gives out high reviews to games that consumers find questionable.  So what is our goal in all of this?  Good question...it isn't what you think.  But we will come back to that.

Ideally, I'd love to see us be a kind of consumer reports type of magazine.  We owe nothing to the publishers, or our readers...other than a fair balanced review.   How do they do it?  I can only assume that manufacturers send items to Consumer Reports in hopes that it will be rated well.  Much like what publishers do for us,  they want to see good reviews.  The part that is missing is this: Consumer Reports has a long standing tradition of being neutral (based on my own experience...YMMV).  Most magazines haven't taken the time to establish their neutrality, or fail to do so at all.  Here at GT, we indicate wether we purchased the game or it was provided, so that you can make up your own mind.  I would love to not have the publishers send us a single title.  I would like to go out, pick up some games, review them, and then return the stinkers and average games I don't want in my collection.  To me, this would make for the ideal reviewer situation.  The only bias you have to deal with then is the reviewer's.

Of course, you also have to consider GT's role in the whole game.  We want to bring gaming reviews to you, as well as up to date information on what is coming and going in the industry.  What we want from you is your views.  By your reading the site on a consistant basis, we can build ad revenue to bring more options, features, and reviews to you.  So in the end, all three groups have a goal to meet, and all of them involve money.  Each of us is trying to make the best use of our money and succeed.  I would advise readers to look at their sources for reviews and decide which provides the most fair and balanced review amongst all this money.  I would hope that it is GT. smile

(I'd like to note that this is my take on the situation, and does not necessarily reflect Ron or the rest of GT's opinion on the subject)
Logged

Tom "Dreamshadow" Tjarks
Aunt Wu: Care to hear your fortune, handsome?
Iroh: At my age there is really only one big surprise left, and I'd just as soon leave it a mystery.
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15437


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: April 12, 2006, 04:26:40 PM »

Good post: As for Consumer Reports: I believe they buy all of the products they test.  Wiki agrees:

Quote
Consumer Reports is known for publishing reviews and comparisons of consumer products and services based on reporting and results from its in-house testing laboratory. Consumer Reports does not accept advertising nor permit the commercial use of its reviews for selling products. Further, all tested products are purchased at retail by Consumer Reports staff. No free samples are accepted from manufacturers. Consumer Reports' tests and ratings of appliances, foods, automobiles and other products/services are highly respected.


I personally have never suspected GT of any shenaninagans, but it's clear that OXM is overtly biased and positive spinny.

I know a lot people have an axe to grind with Gamespot, but of the major sources, I find them to be the most spot on.
Logged
Tebunker
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3480


Ask How, Ask Now, Ask me


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: April 12, 2006, 06:09:28 PM »

Consumer Reports, however, is fairly poor at judging products. I run into it all the time in my industry(paint), as CR doesn't use industry accepted standards for testing. On top of that I allways wonder how one year a certain brand is #1 and the next year it's a different brand yet the products haven't changed year over year. Finally, a lot of times Consumer Reports doesn't compare apples to apples. So I would never recommend them for just about anything.


As for reviews and score etc. It's my personal belief that you can't give an arbitrary number when it comes to subjectivity. One persons 10 is anothers 7, so why even use numbers? I will give gt credit, they attached numbers and weights to different categories and it works okay, but I am still very anti-numbers. I read the review and try to understand where the reviewer is coming from.
Logged

"I hate cynicism -- it's my least favorite quality and it doesn't lead anywhere. Nobody in life gets exactly what they thought they were going to get. But if you work really hard and you're kind amazing things will happen." - Conan O'Brien
Ridah
Senior Staff Writer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5530



View Profile
« Reply #24 on: April 12, 2006, 06:46:49 PM »

Quote
One persons 10 is anothers 7, so why even use numbers?


Exactly, and that's the point we're all debating about right now. Putting numerical values on an entertainment product is inefficient and inaccurate, but it has to be done because that's what people and publishers alike want. Most people don't sit down and read entire reviews, hell I'm not innocent here I do the same thing, if I see a game scored above an 8 I trust the publication to know what they are talking about and I'll seriously consider buying the game. That's where reader loyalty comes in though, I have a trust in certain review sites because in the past they haven't steered me wrong.

Using a rating system is fine for games, just don't expect an a scientific explanation of why the game was given that rating. Take the rating and expect to possibly add a point or subtract a point based on your own personal preferences.
Logged

Sean Lama
Senior Staff Editor, GamingTrend
Jimmy the Fish
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 1325


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: April 12, 2006, 07:16:18 PM »

IMO, regardless of what score Fight Night 3 ultimately deserved, what I find most laughable is the OXM editor's defense of "it's a game, don't take it so serious". That is simply a lazy copout. Instead of defending their review scale or explaining why the game deserved a 10 regardless of the percieved weaknesses, she'd rather just give a lame excuse.

If gaming ever wants to become an entertainment media on par with movies or music, then why shouldn't people be so serious or passionate about games? Whether she likes it or not, games ARE a serious industry. People ARE serious about games. For a lot of gamers, including many of us who frequent this board, games are a hobby. The fact that so many people are debating the merit of a "perfect" score for FN3 is good for our hobby. To say that people shouldn't take it so seriously shows me what kind of gamers they are over at OXM. If that is their attitude, I'll gladly let my subscription expire and not bother renewing.
Logged
Knightshade Dragon
Administrator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 21057



View Profile WWW
« Reply #26 on: April 12, 2006, 07:24:50 PM »

Quote
Sorry but your the one with flawed thinking. You and Ron are making this comment as if its fact. This is YOUR opinion on the game. Its not universal fact come to by some sort of scientific reasoning. Also so what if some blog ripped the game apart, its the Internet I could find a review on just about any game that rips it apart too even though allot may think its the best title around.
Universal? no.  Almost universal? yes.  86% as per 55 of the biggest (including us) sites: link

I respect the fact that you weren't as bothered as the rest of us by the issues with the game, but only OXM saw fit to bump it 10+% more than anyone else.  The scores are not arbitrary as they are being made out to be.  For instance - let's take a graphics score.  Does the game measure up to other 'next gen titles' or does it suffer from porting?  Clipping issues?  Framerate issues?  Texture tearing?  Etc.  The fact is that Fight Night Round 3 in specific suffered from several of these, but as you said - there is simply nothing better out there.  I knocked it to a 92 as a result.  Could it have been a 90? sure.  Could it have been a 93?  Sure.  A 95? No...too many issues.  It is meant to give a rough estimate - let's not pretend 'thumbs up' or 'thumbs down' is a scientific method.  


Quote
Basically I think EddieA made the best point about this subject. Also The more I think about it the change CGW made to not having a score I think is a good idea. Having all these diffrent ratings(and to be honest Gamingtrend's is one of the stranger ones) should just be removed and the review text itself speak for the quaility of the title or lack there of.
 You missed the point - many people look only for the scores, pros and cons.  Without the score you are missing a major component.  Its great that CGW has enough readership already to take that risk.  In the end, I don't expect that it will last.  The first thing I hear directly from developers and publishers is "What did you score the game?" and then they read the actual body text.  

I'm certainly open to suggestions.  We will be revamping the score system (and its only odd because we used the same one that Rich used on Gone Gold.  It is a hold-over that is going away)) during our redesign.  Now would be the time to suggest what you like and don't like.
Logged

Ron Burke
EiC, Director of Gaming Trend
Gamertag:
Gaming Trend
PS3 Tag: GamingTrend
Jumangi
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1797



View Profile
« Reply #27 on: April 12, 2006, 09:20:19 PM »

Quote
I respect the fact that you weren't as bothered as the rest of us by the issues with the game, but only OXM saw fit to bump it 10+% more than anyone else.


So what? Its their right to do so. Does every review have to fall within some pre-determined range of others or what its somehow biased?

Quote from: "Zarkon"
Not fact?


No its not, what part of 'Games reviews are subjective' don't you get?

I could care less what Gamerankings says. In fact that site is what is wrong with scores in the first place. People focus on them to absurd extremes, and the site translates 5 star rankings to the percentile system when the editors of magazines like CGM and CGW have said isn't right based on their scale of what say 3/5 stars means in their magazine.

If you don't agree with the 10 then thats fine. I don't think the game deserved it either but thats my opinion along with yours and everybody else's, not a fact.

This whole fixation on scores and Gamerankings averages is just dumb.
Logged
warning
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7325



View Profile
« Reply #28 on: April 12, 2006, 09:31:25 PM »

Quote from: "Jimmy the Fish"
IMO, regardless of what score Fight Night 3 ultimately deserved, what I find most laughable is the OXM editor's defense of "it's a game, don't take it so serious".

That would be different if we were talking about a $1 pack of bubble gum.  But we're talking about a $60 game.  For some people that represents a considerable amount of money to spend on entertainment.  I'd certainly want to base my opinion on a reviewer that wants to be taken seriously.
Logged
Knightshade Dragon
Administrator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 21057



View Profile WWW
« Reply #29 on: April 12, 2006, 09:44:25 PM »

Quote
So what? Its their right to do so. Does every review have to fall within some pre-determined range of others or what its somehow biased?
And it is my right to call them on it.  All rights established, no, they don't have to 'conform' but when 80+ people say one thing and 1 person says something different...sometimes you are a trendsetter, and sometimes you are just wrong.  

Quote
If you don't agree with the 10 then thats fine. I don't think the game deserved it either but thats my opinion along with yours and everybody else's, not a fact.
I think you could safely say that a game with framerate issues should never get a 10.  True?

Quote
This whole fixation on scores and Gamerankings averages is just dumb.
Gamerankings is an aggregate site.  Its useful, if inaccurate, in giving a general idea.  If you are looking for accuracy, you gotta read the text.  

If you agree with the score or not, the point remains the same.  For those who DO rely on the score, its misleading.
Logged

Ron Burke
EiC, Director of Gaming Trend
Gamertag:
Gaming Trend
PS3 Tag: GamingTrend
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: April 12, 2006, 10:04:00 PM »

At the end of the day after seeing OXM's Fight Night Rnd 3 score and then playing the game myself, I have much less trust in OXM's reviews now.  In fact I'm sure alot of people who did not care for Fight Night will feel the same.     If that eventually translates into less sales for OXM then maybe they will re-evaluate their review practices.  All I can ask for from a reviewer is that they finished the game and gave an unbiassed opinion.  If their conclusions about games consistantly differs from mine then I will stop looking to them for reviews, and find a reviewer who shares my idea of what makes a game great.
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
Luke
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 100


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: April 12, 2006, 10:27:38 PM »

Quote from: "Knightshade Dragon"
I'm certainly open to suggestions.  We will be revamping the score system (and its only odd because we used the same one that Rich used on Gone Gold.  It is a hold-over that is going away)) during our redesign.  Now would be the time to suggest what you like and don't like.


Simplification.  Daily Radar had a great ratings system when it was around.  'Direct Hit', 'Hit', and 'Miss'.  There might also have been another "score" below 'Miss', but I can't remember.  It's been at least 5 years since the old DR disappeared.  

The Daily Radar scale is great because it satisfies the scorehunters and the corporate aggregators (although aggregating this kind of scale is possibly sillier than aggregating any other type of scale because so much of the meaning of the score is contained in the review text), but it also requires reading and engaging the brain to understand why the game received the score it was given.  It takes the emphasis away from arbitrary, relative numbers and puts it on the text of the review and the critical writing skills of the reviewer where it belongs.  One of my primary concerns with the current preponderance of the numbers game in game reviews is that numerical scores have become a refuge from reviewers' lack of critical writing skills.  I fear that more and more reviewers are starting to use numbers as a shelter to protect themselves from their inability to elucidate their thoughts about a game.  If they can't completely explain why they do or don't like a game, they can just end the paragraph and stick a number at the bottom of the page, and everyone's happy.  Except me smile

In this modern age of review aggregation sites, game review numbers have become silly and increasingly meaningless.  Every review site has a different scale, and even when sites use identical numerical scales, they likely assign different meanings to each rating available to the scale.  Does a 9 from IGN mean the same thing as a 9 from Gamespot, when the former has a history of awarding them much more liberally than the latter?  So what am I supposed to get when I stick all the scores in a pot, convert them to a percentile scale, and stir?  What does the resulting average really mean when the individual scores aren't in agreement, don't and can't account for the individual differences of their respective reviewers' scales?  

Furthermore, can the score really tell us all that much about the quality of a game?  Certainly not as much as a well written review.  Scores only have the meaning we ascribe to them, after all; there is no inherent relationship between a number, any number, and a game.  They're a synopsis; they shouldn't be the focus.  Even detailed numerical breakdowns to account for genre preferences, cost of game, length of game, etc. can't convey this information as completely as can words.

Scores are a great way to facilitate comparing games, and this act becomes more meaningful as the operation is localized to individual magazines or websites, reviewers, genres, and/or periods of time.  But so many factors are lost when these numbers are taken out of their context and stuffed into the aggregation machine.  Comparison becomes increasingly meaningless, and every site that relies on numerical ratings contributes to the problem.  The obsession with the numbers game that permeates game writing these days is a pox on gamers, and I'm once again challenging you, Knightshade, to be impractical, step up to the plate, and take away those silly numbers and allow your reviewers' writing to speak for itself.  So, yeah, my suggestion is the Daily Radar scale, or something similarly minimal or even nonexistent.
Logged
EddieA
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6922


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: April 12, 2006, 11:15:55 PM »

" I think you could safely say that a game with framerate issues should never get a 10. True?"
Only if you regard "10" as being perfect.  Even the best of games have flaws, and they always will.  You could take a perfectly executed game, with cutting-edge graphics, great sound effects and music, rock-solid gameplay, and no bugs or framerate issues, and it could still be no fun to play, whereas a game with lots of issues could be a blast to play.  There's an intangible "fun factor" involved with games, which is why game reviewing is a tricky business.

I understand people looking to game reviews to base their decision whether or not to buy a game, and why they should be taken somewhat seriously, but I also agree that people are taking games way too seriously these days.  You hear a lot about how much more people used to enjoy games in the "good old days" and how modern games aren't as fun, and I think this serious attitude has a lot to do with it.  Before, it was easy to overlook a game's flaws and just enjoy it.  Now, every flaw is magnified by seeing it mentioned in every review, and there are always people who can't wait to tear a game to shreds over any flaw.  I enjoy discussing games and reading about them, but I sometimes wonder if it's making me forget how to just enjoy them, warts and all.
Logged

"Why did the chicken cross the Mobius strip?  To get to the same side."  - The Big Bang Theory
Graham
Managing Editor
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4016


View Profile WWW
« Reply #33 on: April 13, 2006, 01:55:13 AM »

Quote from: "Luke"
Scores are a great way to facilitate comparing games, and this act becomes more meaningful as the operation is localized to individual magazines or websites, reviewers, genres, and/or periods of time.  But so many factors are lost when these numbers are taken out of their context and stuffed into the aggregation machine.  Comparison becomes increasingly meaningless, and every site that relies on numerical ratings contributes to the problem.  The obsession with the numbers game that permeates game writing these days is a pox on gamers, and I'm once again challenging you, Knightshade, to be impractical, step up to the plate, and take away those silly numbers and allow your reviewers' writing to speak for itself.  So, yeah, my suggestion is the Daily Radar scale, or something similarly minimal or even nonexistent.


Scores are a fact of life.  If you aren't going to be happy with it, then you're going to be pretty depressed for the rest of your life.

I have just as much of a problem assigning a number to an area because of how subjective it is.  However, they are a necessary evil, because a lot of people don't read the review.  They just want to see what the scores of the section are and what the final score is.

A lot of people don't see what we have to do.  It is a business.  Companies will ask how we scored the game.  Doing something like getting rid of scores is like the blind leading the blind of a very steep cliff.   So you don't like reading the numbers?  Read the review without looking at the numbers.  Most people use the numbers as a guide and will then read the review if it's a game they feel that is interesting to them.

Games are a bigger investment and time committment than a movie is, so I want to know more about the games available, and I want people to make an informed decision about the games I have played.  I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but if everyone calls a game "crap in a box," I think that it's reasonable to think that is an accurate representation of the game.  If a large number of reviews see the same issues, then it's likely that issue is in a game.

Personally, I think that it's easier to get a review in the 80's range here than in the 90's unless you score things phenomenally high in all areas.  I do have issues with the scoring system, but it's what we have for right now.
Logged

Partial Owner of the World Champion Green Bay Packers
Jumangi
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1797



View Profile
« Reply #34 on: April 13, 2006, 02:21:42 AM »

Quote from: "Knightshade Dragon"

 I think you could safely say that a game with framerate issues should never get a 10.  True?



No I wouldn't as EddieA for instance keeps trying to say it depends. I don't know how I can explain that a '10' doesn't mean they think its flawless. As others have said there has never been a game released that was 100% perfect. OXM isn't saying the game is perfect with not a single thing wrong(they actually say that in the review). The EGM reviewer that gives a game a 10 isn't saying that either.

Its your problem you can't seem to deal with a diffrence of opinion in the case of this OXM review not theirs.
Logged
Knightshade Dragon
Administrator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 21057



View Profile WWW
« Reply #35 on: April 13, 2006, 02:43:36 AM »

Quote
As others have said there has never been a game released that was 100% perfect. OXM isn't saying the game is perfect with not a single thing wrong(they actually say that in the review).
That isn't all they didn't say.  They didn't mention jack about the issues we presented in our review of the title.  You don't see a problem there?  If reviews aren't to inform the consumer, what are they for?

Quote
Its your problem you can't seem to deal with a diffrence of opinion in the case of this OXM review not theirs.
Nope - could care less.  My problem is that they don't do anything to inform on the actual issues with the game, then they mislead with their 'perfect 10' score.  Not everyone shares the idea that 10 doesn't really mean perfect.
Logged

Ron Burke
EiC, Director of Gaming Trend
Gamertag:
Gaming Trend
PS3 Tag: GamingTrend
Zarkon
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4848


View Profile WWW
« Reply #36 on: April 13, 2006, 02:45:39 AM »

Quote from: "Jumangi"
Quote
I respect the fact that you weren't as bothered as the rest of us by the issues with the game, but only OXM saw fit to bump it 10+% more than anyone else.


So what? Its their right to do so. Does every review have to fall within some pre-determined range of others or what its somehow biased?

Quote from: "Zarkon"
Not fact?


No its not, what part of 'Games reviews are subjective' don't you get?

I could care less what Gamerankings says. In fact that site is what is wrong with scores in the first place. People focus on them to absurd extremes, and the site translates 5 star rankings to the percentile system when the editors of magazines like CGM and CGW have said isn't right based on their scale of what say 3/5 stars means in their magazine.

If you don't agree with the 10 then thats fine. I don't think the game deserved it either but thats my opinion along with yours and everybody else's, not a fact.

This whole fixation on scores and Gamerankings averages is just dumb.


Nice subjective editing on what I actually said, by the way.

Try using the full context of what I said instead of picking and choosing to make your argument next time, okay?  You took the first line of my post instead of looking down -into- my post and seeing -this-.

Quote from: "Zarkon"
It may not be a fact (since nothing in the review world can be), but when you get enough reviews saying the same thing, with one that's saying something quite different, you tend to start to wonder about that one different one.
Logged
Zarkon
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4848


View Profile WWW
« Reply #37 on: April 13, 2006, 03:01:00 AM »

Note:  The point of all of this is -not- whether we use point scores or not, or even if they're arbitrary, which they are.

The point is that OXM gave a game a 10 that did not deserve it.  They did not touch on any of the issues that showed why this game didn't deserve the 10.  That makes it a bad review.

Then the editor-in-chief of OXM goes online and cops out with "It's just a game, why are we so serious about it, wah!", which is just sad, and highlights half of what's wrong with the game journalism industry.
Logged
EddieA
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6922


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: April 13, 2006, 05:44:52 AM »

"Not everyone shares the idea that 10 doesn't really mean perfect."
What matters is how OXM defines a 10.  Most magazines have an explanation of their scoring system, and I'd be interested to know what theirs says.
Logged

"Why did the chicken cross the Mobius strip?  To get to the same side."  - The Big Bang Theory
Knightshade Dragon
Administrator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 21057



View Profile WWW
« Reply #39 on: April 13, 2006, 06:11:24 AM »

Well, all this discussion and discourse only helps this site.  It helps us to refine what YOU as a reader want.  It helps us redefine how we build our reviews.  I just want you guys to be happy with the product we turn out.  You may not always agree, but on the whole...
Logged

Ron Burke
EiC, Director of Gaming Trend
Gamertag:
Gaming Trend
PS3 Tag: GamingTrend
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.187 seconds with 103 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.037s, 2q)