Stratto83's forum posts

  • 11 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Stratto83 (17 posts) -

@Bones8677: That is probably a better way to word what quick looks provide. A first impression.

I can say I have played a number of games where the core game was great, maybe had a lull in later or mid sections to later fall flat on it's face in the end and just ask - What just happened? On the other end I've had games which I have replayed over and over because I enjoyed so much. How I would rate those games - I have no idea.

As an interactive designer / developer I agree that the illustrations are not the best, and more than like should not be used as a, way to use as a review gauge. I more felt they give a better understanding of the guys feeling of the game than a star system or number.

As a Graphic Designer where do you think the review system could go on GB and other sites? Are there any examples you think work really well or others which are just terrible?

#2 Posted by Stratto83 (17 posts) -

@EricSmith: Thanks for your comments and understand that point three can be considered pointless. Was more curious what people thought on the matter seeing many sites seem to make special note that problems would be addressed with day one patches.

As one of those 28 million people who can't get their console / game updates - I do feel that if went to purchase a game and the publisher says 'We know there are some issues there we couldn't address before we went to print, but we have a day one patch for you' The I have to question why am I asked to pay full price for a product which the creator acknowledges has issues? Then again if you could get the update then no problem I guess.

#3 Posted by Stratto83 (17 posts) -

@YOU_DIED: Well said sir - thanks for your opinion

#4 Posted by Stratto83 (17 posts) -

@That1BlackGuy: Thanks for your comments. I agree that there is a general disconnect that a game which get a 6/10 let's say translates to a 2/10.

It would be interesting to look into why this trend has happened. Perhaps as well have some insight from review sites on how they get to their final scores. This has been a long console generations for example. While our hardware has been the same the quality of the games has dramatically improved. When people go back to those games which received high scores in 2006 and compare them with games of the same score in 2012, will the old score still stand? In some cases yes, others perhaps not as we have experienced better ways of playing that type of game.

And I hear ya when you say some of your favourite games got shat on - as did a few of fine - Oh well I still had a great time.

#5 Posted by Stratto83 (17 posts) -

@BoogieWithStu: Interesting you bring up the question of rating a game by how you felt when you played it or how I feel now? Reviewing something should be how 'ENGAGED YOUR EXPERIENCE' was with the game, product, service etc.

I wrote an post yesterday asking the questions Are game review scores really worth it or are they more trouble?

As one of the comments pointed out, a score is a score and a review is a review. But allowing the audience to know you and understand why you gave the review you did better helps them feel if they are with y likes and dislikes rather than focusing the review score.

#6 Edited by Stratto83 (17 posts) -

@Toxeia: Thanks for your insights - and going back to read my terrible writing much appreciated. I agree with you that review scores and written reviews are only worth as much as the reviewer that gives them and you knowing your reviewer. Trusting them. And understanding how your tastes relate to or differ from theirs.

With that said the GB Community is a rare group because we get to see the raw said of the GB crew with no sugar coating. This allows us to get to know our reviewers really well. Do you feel that in the future game review sites will need to open up more so people can better get to know their reviewers and better trust them rather than the - Oh such and such site is being payed by such and such games company which is why the score is the way it is?

Personally I'm more than happy with the GB team and community the way it is.

#7 Edited by Stratto83 (17 posts) -

Hey Bombers and Community

As everyone in your industry is well aware and those amongst the GB community, a games review scores / meta score once reviewed at launch is it's critical to it's success both with the gaming community and big business. But -

Q: Are game review 'scores' really worth it or are they more trouble than they are worth?

Situation 1 - No rating system to rule them all

No one rating system can accurately articulate what the reviewer experienced with a game. Everyone is different and will always take away their own experiences. How can games geared to allow the player maximum flexibility in their playing style, like Skyrim and maybe the resent Dishonored, be rated on the same rating or scoring chart / system as a game that is on rails or a linear corridor shooter.

In this industry it seems we are trying to bucket our 'experiences' and reviews into a kind of tangible score. Why can a game just be and people either like it or don't? This goes for reviews. Why do reviewers have to give a score?

Q: @GB - Why do you give games a rating system at all? Why not just stick with the team illustrations?

To me the team/reviewer illustrations that go along with the reviews give a greater context. To me these shows the level of ENGAGEMENT the reviewer had with the game. A much better system, in my opinion, than stars or a 8.5 for example.

At the end of the day is the score just a device to help people decide if they should purchase a game? If so, and I know it's costly, why don't more games companies build betas and demos for people to make up their own mind?

Situation 2 - The Comments Section

With the recent launch of Halo 4 and AC3 this week also reaffirmed that many gamers, fan boys or not, DON'T read the full review article. Across many games sites gamers are just focusing on the score. While it's fantastic to see the comments section set alight -

Q: @GB - Do you as reviewers feel pissed off when you see comments from people clearly have not read your written reviews above?

Situation 3 - Day One / Future Patches / Content:

For game developers these days they can rest assured that should some terrible bug arise with their game, that they could not be addressed before the game was sent to print; or had time to revisit the code and improve it's performance they have the ability to release an update to their players. With services like Steam, Xbox Live etc. this process is now even easier if not seamless.

Q: So with the prospect of updates, patches and DLC to most games these days dose that mean game scores should be revisited once patches have been released?

Q: If a games company address the criticisms of reviewers and initial gamers as a patch - does that mean the original reviews no longer hold meaning because the criticism no longer exist after the patch? E.g Mass Effect 3? *

* PLease note that I have never played any of the Mass Effect game. YES I KNOW I'M WORSE THAN BRAD ON THIS FRONT. I more use it as an example because the story ending was a topic of such scorn by both players and reviewers. Now that they have released a patch does that mean the reviews, need to be revised?

Q: What does this also mean when games companies re-release HD versions of the game or new bundles of the game? For example Halo Combat Evolved got a face lift in recent times, and while it may be the same game play, does it still mean it should be treated as a new game and reviewed again or just saying it's the same but with new graphics so no need for a review?

If treated as a new game - which makes sense in a way - then when games are re-released without a face lift - like the rumoured Assassins Creed Anthology - come out does that mean they all need to be reviewed as new games because they will contain all DLC and patchs for the complete bundle?

This get more complicated the further we go hmmmmm.....

Situation 4 - The Quick Look

Usually when GB do a quick look on a game there isn't a review to follow. I could be wrong but that is my understanding.

To me these raw quick looks give the audience the best running example on how the game ACTUALLY plays. By removing the edited trailer videos that in some cases saturate us week to week and seeing someone actually play it - no matter if they are good or not at that mode / game - shows how people experience the game.

So if your watching a quick look with someone who may not be good at it and is the same person who reviewed it gives the worlds greatest context as to why they came away with the review they had written.

With that said of course not every game can have a quick look which brings us all the way back around. If everyone is bound to have different experience, different tastes in game types, different expectations of how games should play then -

Q: Are game review 'scores' really worth it or are they more trouble than they are worth?

I know there is so much more that can be discussed and explained here, more than I can. So to all the Bombers I want to know what you think should be the future of really YOUR INDUSTRY, YOUR CAREERS and where you think what you do on a day to day basis for a job should go.

To the Community what do you think about game review scores in general and where do you think the industry should go in the future for reporting and reviewing this industry that we are all clearly passionate about.

Regards

Stratto

#8 Posted by Stratto83 (17 posts) -

Ah Kinect - how I still don't know of a good game with your use just yet. 
 
But I have to agree that I m surprised Microsoft did not have something up their sleeve for the hackers... there was so much hype that of course people would try to make it do other things. And those things look more fun than these games. 

#9 Posted by Stratto83 (17 posts) -

 
Well always open for trying new things I stories - so what do I do with this information now that I know it a few years later............... suggestions?  

#10 Posted by Stratto83 (17 posts) -

It is very true that right now it's a buyers market regarding all things Xbox. With so many options to trade in, private sell or just straight upgrade and keep your old system for something else it's all too tempting. 
 
The only annoying thing is we all know that we will buy the new XBox 360 250Gb but come October - November there will be so many better value Kinect + Xbox 360 250Gb + new game bundles, then throw in the trade-in, that anyone buying the new console now may look back and wish they could have held out till then. 
 
BUT THAT WON'T HAPPEN :P  

  • 11 results
  • 1
  • 2