Would've been funnier/ironic if it was OXM that was giving it a score like that. =\ Seriously though, I think most of us can expect the game to be pretty good, but 21/20 good? Hmm. Somebody wanna call shenanigans?
" Would've been funnier/ironic if it was OXM that was giving it a score like that. =\ Seriously though, I think most of us can expect the game to be pretty good, but 21/20 good? Hmm. Somebody wanna call shenanigans? "
Not even shenanigans. If you're doling out a number off your own review scale, you're at the point where your publication is a joke. Nothing can possibly be better than the best.
Yeah, but this is a review of a videogame; not a school report card. I undrestand some places grade their reviews just like they do on report cards, but most (and I would think this would be consistent) do so on a general 5 or 10 scale. Using 20 just seems arbitrary! Especially if it's really just a combination of multiple reviewer's 10 or 5 point scales (like I said before, you'd just average them).
Just seems a little odd is all. Kind of like "let's review our games on a scale of smell" or something.
" Would've been funnier/ironic if it was OXM that was giving it a score like that. =\ Seriously though, I think most of us can expect the game to be pretty good, but 21/20 good? Hmm. Somebody wanna call shenanigans? "
Not even shenanigans. If you're doling out a number off your own review scale, you're at the point where your publication is a joke. Nothing can possibly be better than the best. "
" Yeah, but this is a review of a videogame; not a school report card. I undrestand some places grade their reviews just like they do on report cards, but most (and I would think this would be consistent) do so on a general 5 or 10 scale. Using 20 just seems arbitrary! "
It's a scale that everyone in France understands, that's why so many french magazines and websites use it. Though I agree a 5 or 10 point scale is better, that's not how most people feel down here. Actually if it was up to me I'd get rid of any kind of score, I think it detracts from the actual article.
That's one of the worst, most short-sighted things you can do to your review scale. What do you do when something even better comes out a year later? Give it a 22?
The long-dead (though since revived with much smarter people at the helm) UK arm of a site I used to work for gave a FIFA game 11/10 one year. We made them change it.
"The long-dead (though since revived with much smarter people at the helm) UK arm of a site I used to work for gave a FIFA game 11/10 one year. We made them change it. "
Ohh man Jeff...you made me shoot my soda out my nose.
" That's one of the worst, most short-sighted things you can do to your review scale. What do you do when something even better comes out a year later? Give it a 22? The long-dead (though since revived with much smarter people at the helm) UK arm of a site I used to work for gave a FIFA game 11/10 one year. We made them change it. "
If you don't give Uncharted 2 a 6 out of 5 I'm calling reviewer bias on your ass.
"What do you do when something even better comes out a year later? Give it a 22?"
But couldnt you say that for something that gets a full score? Like if Game X gets 5 stars here, then the following year Game Y also gets 5 stars, how do you distinguish which one is the superior game? You cant (or shouldnt, as these guys have done) change the scale, or adjust the older scores to rank the better game. Dont get me wrong though, I think this is a fairly stupid thing to do...
"What do you do when something even better comes out a year later? Give it a 22?"
But couldnt you say that for something that gets a full score? Like if Game X gets 5 stars here, then the following year Game Y also gets 5 stars, how do you distinguish which one is the superior game? You cant (or shouldnt, as these guys have done) change the scale, or adjust the older scores to rank the better game. Dont get me wrong though, I think this is a fairly stupid thing to do... "
In my eyes when a game gets the scale's highest rating, the game is receiving the reviewer's highest recommendation. That doesn't mean that it's perfect or that another game couldn't be better but when you break your scale for a game, suddenly your scale doesn't make any sense. 20/20 no longer means highest recommendation. Your scale is no longer out of 20; from that point on, it's out of at least 21, until they decide to break the scale again. If they meant to or not, they just redefined their entire system.
im all about the game being excellent, its been getting "best of show" awards like crazy so its no suprise that it get top scores (5/5, 10/10 etc). giving a game 21/20 is just stupid.
"What do you do when something even better comes out a year later? Give it a 22?"
But couldnt you say that for something that gets a full score? Like if Game X gets 5 stars here, then the following year Game Y also gets 5 stars, how do you distinguish which one is the superior game? You cant (or shouldnt, as these guys have done) change the scale, or adjust the older scores to rank the better game. Dont get me wrong though, I think this is a fairly stupid thing to do... "
Pretty much. The value of a point on the scale for video games changes over time. What's good now may be considered generic in two years, even if it was the pioneer. You have to judge a score with respect to the time it was given. But yea, breaking the scale like that is a dumb idea.
" Who in the fuck uses a 20 point scale for anything?! "
Gamespot?
Either way, this is probably the dumbest thing France has done since they decided to stop the Maginot Line at the Ardennes. I get equally apoplectic when people talk about how they "gave 110%" - no you fucking didn't!
So what's going on with these Uncharted 2 reviews? Are Sony leaning hard on their 'official' mags or what? Because Uncharted didn't exactly set the world on fire...
@eclipsesis: I should be quick to note that it's tied to certain publishers that utilize Metacritic for bonuses and/or development motivation. Some outlets don't use a scoring system, but they tend to get games at a later date than others.
I guess having your review listed on metacritic will generate some traffic that you wouldn't otherwise have, though I have no idea whether it would be a significant amount. In that sense a 5 star system is beneficial, because a 5 star rating = 100% on metacritic* and you'll be at/near the top of the list of reviews a lot more often. Same reason you sometimes see obscure sites giving ridiculously low scores to games - people often check the 'lowest' reviews on metacritic for a second opinion.
*This is flawed on metacritic's part, because 5 stars actually covers the 80%-100% range if you break it down evenly(ish), which metacritic should count as 90%.
" @eclipsesis: I should be quick to note that it's tied to certain publishers that utilize Metacritic for bonuses and/or development motivation. Some outlets don't use a scoring system, but they tend to get games at a later date than others. "
You brought up an interesting point by mentioning Metacritic:
" Who in the fuck uses a 20 point scale for anything?! "
Gamespot? You know, one of the largest gaming websites. "
Gamespot uses a 10-point rating system. Unless they use a different system in every country. Which is a really pointless localization attempt within a single site.
This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along
with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely
increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.
Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other
Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll
send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment