Korne

This user has not updated recently.

640 5 16 7
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

Korne's forum posts

Avatar image for korne
Korne

640

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

7

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 7

#1  Edited By Korne

@Methodis said:

Why don't you cover real news instead of glorifying Harmonix who will be foreclosed this year? Is $10,000 to a SuperPAC really smart when your company stole money from Viacom?

First off, did you read the article? Sort of makes Rigopulos look a little bit like a hypocrite. And 2... what? I never heard of Harmonix stealing money from anyone. Source?

Avatar image for korne
Korne

640

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

7

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 7

#2  Edited By Korne

@Shaka999 said:

Now that I have a PS3, I feel like I should try the first and third resistances. Skip the second.

Would that be right, fellow GBers?

I say you have to play them all. The first one has great gameplay and a good concept, and the second one has an ending that will make your jaw drop. The third reminds me a bit of the walking dead in tone, and is solid on the gameplay front.

Avatar image for korne
Korne

640

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

7

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 7

#3  Edited By Korne

@GlenTennis said:

Man he plays Anivia? I love this guy.

He plays Mao... even more love there. Center lane or jungle Maokai is stronk!

Avatar image for korne
Korne

640

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

7

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 7

#4  Edited By Korne

@Make_Me_Mad said:

I am really getting more and more tired of people quoting that Louis C.K. thing.

Hey look at this guy, complaining about an awesome joke that Louis C.K. made. Can no one be happy? ;)

Avatar image for korne
Korne

640

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

7

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 7

#5  Edited By Korne

@leebmx said:

@SuperSambo:

@Korne said:

That's just the thing... Metacritic works better with Giantbomb's and Xplay's 5 star system. A 3 star game is the equivalent to a 60/100. The problem is not these scores, but all of the others that use higher scales but average the scores to 78%. These are the scores that need to change.

Interesting....I don't think it works at all. After all we surely can't be saying that a 5/5 on GB is 100% game. I bet GB has a way higher number of 100 games on metacritic and that can't be what Jeff etc really want the world to think they are saying in their reviews.

Maybe they don't care, which would be fine as Metacritic would be silly if it wasn't for all the power that has been invested in it, but I can't see how they can think the 5 point scale makes sense extrapolated out to 100.

EDIT: don't misunderstand me I think the 5 point scale is the best if you have to use one - which I would prefer not in truth - however it just gets courrpted by Metacritic turning it to a 100 point scale.

Game Informer has a 0-10 scale, but uses decimal places. They have given a lot 10's... like at least 5 a year. 1UP uses a letter grade scale, where an A+ gets turned into a 100. Gamepro uses 1-100 scale, and seems to give everyone 100s (DOA2 Hardcore, NBA Street, XIII!). Eurogamer, even with their tough grading system, has had over 50 10/10's (although they have been around longer), and they also have the lowest average score (66).

I have heard the argument that the reason these averages are so high is because the sites tend to not review the horrible shovelware. I personally don't see why that matters. It just seems like a way to justify pandering to readers and publishers.

Avatar image for korne
Korne

640

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

7

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 7

#6  Edited By Korne

@leebmx said:

@SuperSambo: @Korne said:

That's just the thing... Metacritic works better with Giantbomb's and Xplay's 5 star system. A 3 star game is the equivalent to a 60/100. The problem is not these scores, but all of the others that use higher scales but average the scores to 78%. These are the scores that need to change.

Interesting....I don't think it works at all. After all we surely can't be saying that a 5/5 on GB is 100% game. I bet GB has a way higher number of 100 games on metacritic and that can't be what Jeff etc really want the world to think they are saying in their reviews.

Maybe they don't care, which would be fine as Metacritic would be silly if it wasn't for all the power that has been invested in it, but I can't see how they can think the 5 point scale makes sense extrapolated out to 100.

EDIT: don't misunderstand me I think the 5 point scale is the best if you have to use one - which I would prefer not in truth - however it just gets courrpted by Metacritic turning it to a 100 point scale.

This is where it gets weird. 100% does not mean a perfect game by no means, but yet it is used so frequently in gaming. And you'd be surprised how many sites give waaaaay more 100% than giantbomb. But really, if you want to simplify the scale (aka no more 93s), you have to allow the entire scale to be used. This includes 100% and 0%. I think that's all I want. I'm tired of the 60-100 scale... I want to see the full 0-100... and I want 50 to be the score of an average game. If the average of all scores given is in the upper 70s, something is wrong.

Avatar image for korne
Korne

640

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

7

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 7

#7  Edited By Korne

@sanchopanza said:

Am I the only one that thinks Manveer is talking out of his ass with the review vs. criticism thing? Surely you can't have one without the other...right? The review is there to point out the good things and criticise the bad things. If the reviewer finds the design of a game to be boring, isn't that as valid a criticism as saying the graphics suck balls?

What would a criticism free review even sound like? Every single such review would boil down to something like "when you push the button the guy moves, 5 stars".

To me (and maybe I'm in the minority on this), reviews are more like quick looks in text form. They express facts and features or a product, and in the end, rate it. In a review, the author has to stay objective. With a critique, the author's background is taken into account, and he/she is free to express their complete opinion about a game. Podcasts act as great mediums for critiques, but as journalists are becoming more known, people understand their tastes, and can come to reasonable conclusions based that person's biases.

Avatar image for korne
Korne

640

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

7

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 7

#8  Edited By Korne

@SuperSambo said:

@leebmx said:

Shouldn't Giant Bomb get taken off Metcritic then? It always bugs me when the 3* review gets put up as 60 and if Patrick you are so adamant about this being wrong why not get Giant Bomb removed - or are you worried about losing hits from linkthroughs?

I haven't read the article as I am saving it for later, but Jeff has said on formspring that he thinks metacritic works with GB's scoring system.

That's just the thing... Metacritic works better with Giantbomb's and Xplay's 5 star system. A 3 star game is the equivalent to a 60/100. The problem is not these scores, but all of the others that use higher scales but average the scores to 78%. These are the scores that need to change.

Avatar image for korne
Korne

640

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

7

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 7

#9  Edited By Korne

Patrick is right in one big aspect; the reason sites like Giantbomb and Xplay use the 5 star scale is because it does not inflate. You have Horrible (0 stars), Bad (1 star), almost average (2 stars), just above average (3 stars), great (4 stars), and AMAZING (5 stars). And unlike what the 0-10 and 0-100 scales are doing right now, the average is close to the median (the middle score. This has always bugged me, how the average score of games could be at 77%. Why not use the whole scale? Why not give an average game (Singularity) a 50%? Why not give a game that did some good things but still was not up to par (Homefront) a 30%? I look at the other review aggregates on Metacritic like movies and tv shows, and see the average score being below a 50%... but still close.

We need to get journalists and reviewers together and make a stand. The scores need to drop. Until then, reviews seem arbitrary. In fact, metacritic could do something cool like average all of the scores from a site, and then shift those scores to be closer to the 50% average.

Avatar image for korne
Korne

640

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

7

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 7

#10  Edited By Korne

Thourouly enjoyed the back and forth. To me, reviews are like quicklooks put in print. They tell you the facts, and afterward, they try to give a number (something that I never liked about most reviews, since the numbers seem arbitrary, especially when comparing different sites). A critique on the other hand, holds more weight. This is where the personality of the writer can show through, and based on the writers history, can really recommend or deter someone from checking out a game. And just because a game is thrashed, does not mean it didnt do things right. Catherine is a good example of an interesting 'Failure' that many people enjoyed. Shadows of the Damned, and to a lesser extent, LA Noire also sorta fall into this category. But you know what, I loved these games to death... but at the same time, I know not everyone will. So I listen to podcast and read critiques of like and opposite minded reviewers to see if the game is worth my diminishing time. These critiques are worth so much more than a non-standardized score. PS: Sorry for wall-o-text