Things That Really !&$% You Off

All the states have a public holiday for their small people riding horses.. We had one for the Hobart cup

Bad game reviews really irritate me. And to be honest, I think most game reviews are pretty shit. There is a tendency to follow the same old formula: "what the game is about, graphics, audio, value for money, etc" when that is almost never what you sit and appreciate when you play something. Take a game like Deadly Premonition: review scores were all over the place because a bunch of reviewers played it and wrote a review saying "I kind of liked it but the graphics were bad and it was a bit clunky so I give it 4/10!" What? Why? You just said you enjoyed it!

A lot of game reviews are full of fluff, as well. To name and shame, I think Nintendo Life's reviews are dire. Case in point - the last sentence of their Pokemon Link: Battle! review: "Like so many puzzle titles, repetition does become an issue over prolonged periods of time, but the portable nature of the host platform makes this ideal short-burst entertainment."

Why on earth did you use so many words to say that? Why did you even bother pointing that out? It's a match-three puzzler, and you already said in the review that there are many of its kind; if you keep playing ANY game over and over then of course it's going to get repetitive, but thanks for explaining it; and yes, it's on a handheld - a phrase like "the portable nature of the host platform" is a totally wanky, unnecessary way of saying that.

I suppose you just have to find a reviewer that you generally agree with and see what they have to say about it, but they're so hard to find. And it's frustrating because games are expensive! So expensive! How am I supposed to make an informed decision about whether or not I'd enjoy a game if so many of the reviewers just go "well, it's fun, but it's £50, so I give it 60% because I don't think it's worth that." WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? THAT IS SO ARBITRARY

I can kind of understand where that last lot were coming from, though. Sometimes a game that should be an 80%-er on the basis of what you've written feels like a 60%-er in your gut. They're all objective anyway - I guess it's best to take a broad sample.

I think I agree - though did you mean subjective, not objective?

What I meant more with my last point was how a reviewer will assign a seemingly arbitrary score based on what they thought the game was worth. Considering a game's price will vary across territories and over time I just don't see it as remotely telling of what the game is like. A retail game might drop in price almost immediately and a downloadable title might face a sale whereby it costs tuppence.

Reviews would do better to drop scores entirely and go on words. Edge and its 1-10 is the best but it's so boring to read. I miss NGamer.

There's been an issue of EDGE this year that had no 3DS or Wii U games in neither its previews or its reviews. :affraid:

Broadly agree with Rum. In the early days of me being into gaming magazines reviews seemed to be more experimental than today, where they seem to have a kind of house format. For a few years you could guarantee that a NintendoLife review would mention the game's music in the last paragraph, for example. People must feel the need to justify what they're saying using waffle, I suppose.

shanks wrote:

All the states have a public holiday for their small people riding horses.. We had one for the Hobart cup  

I stand corrected then, the incompetent choosing of public holidays is a national one.

Rum Rapture wrote:

I think I agree - though did you mean subjective, not objective?

What I meant more with my last point was how a reviewer will assign a seemingly arbitrary score based on what they thought the game was worth. Considering a game's price will vary across territories and over time I just don't see it as remotely telling of what the game is like. A retail game might drop in price almost immediately and a downloadable title might face a sale whereby it costs tuppence.

Yes, yes I did. And on the price front, I can still see where they're coming from: they should probably say that in the review, however (and a lot of them do: "buy when it hits £x" being a common review comment I've seen). Personally, I'd say that it should only be longevity that influences that: would I feel that a two-hour game is worth £40? Only if it were really really good. But I might snap it up for £10.

But surely whether or not a short game is worth more money is up to the person buying the game? The reviewer should be telling you how good they think the game is, and sure, trying to convey whether or not it's value for money - but if the review is well-written then surely you should be able to infer from it how much you'd be willing to pay for the game? If the review paints a picture of a game that is well put together and full of content (that YOU would find interesting) then you know you'd pay money for it; equally if the reviewer writes that he/she enjoyed it but it was a bit flimsy then you can take that to mean you should wait for a sale.

I dunno, it just seems completely irrelevant for the reviewer's opinion on value for money to factor in to how good the game is. We all have different opinions on what we want from a game in order to be satisfied with our purchase. If the review makes it clear what the game can offer, then we can make our own decisions whether or not we'd think the game was worth buying. That's what a good review should do.

I agree that's what 90% of the review should do, but at the end you get into subjectivity: score, and (linked to that) a cost at which it would be worthwhile. I don't see worthwhile cost being any more or less worthy of inclusion than trying to sum up everything about the game in a single percentage.

Now, whether games should be including a percentage or a numerical estimate of value for money at the end at all is a different matter, since it's all heavily subjective. I'm a fan of numbers, me, but I can't help agree with Buska in part. By reading the review, you should be able to tell whether it's for you or not. Removes accusations of bias and backhanders when a heavily criticised game gets 8/10 as well. But people expect the score, and the cost is going to be part of that.

Eh, the inclusion of cost in a review bugs me because the price doesn't affect how good the game is. By that logic a game's rating should vary according to where it's released and the timescale after its release, as prices differ between territories and fall over time.

The notion of a game earning a specific rating is obviously flawed, anyway. And of course it's the content of the review that matters. Which brings me back to my original point of how so many reviewers miss the point of a review, in that they don't actually summarise what makes the game worth experiencing in any meaningful way.

Not that I really have the disposable income to buy any games these days anyway...

I think we're on the same page, then, despite this conversation!  Although I don't think I've experienced many of the reviewers you talk about, thankfully.

The main problem I have with reviews is that there is a 10 point scale in most cases but only 6-10 get used. Use the whole dam scale that's what it's there for but as they don't a lot of okay to decent games get 8's which they shouldn't the okay ones should be getting 6 and decent should be more around the 8. Also I don't think 10/10 should be ever given as that would mean it's perfect but nothings perfect but I do remember when bayonetta 2 got scores like that some justified it by saying it was the best game in it's genre and what all future game like it should be judge on.

About the value thing in review it's a touchy thing as I just watched a review fro rainbow moon on IGN which get's a lot of praise for being a great old style rpg and one of the best for a while. The game is $15 and has about 50hrs of gamplay, see I don't know if that came into account or not in the review and would it affect you buying or not. If you had limited funds and you knew this game was only $15 and was going to give you lot's of game time would you but it over a game that might be same price but only a few hours long or spend more more to get something just as long.

I'm curious to see what reviews MGSV:GZ get's being 2 hours long but only £20 and having replay value.

I do have a pissed me off thing.eBay well not eBay really but I was looking at car with a few days to go on there, so rang the garage and it was sold days ago. Why still have it listed just end the auction if it's sold and what if I clicked buy it now (I wouldn't as I would want to view the car before I bought) and paid for it because of eBay rules they would have to sell me the car.

The 6-10 thing annoys me as well, but 10/10 isn't like 100% in that it should never be used.  The way I see it, 95%+ should be equivalent to 10/10, 85-94% 9/10, and so on.

(considers talking about normal distributions etc., but decides against it)

The % scale is much better or even points scale so a 9.6 instead would be better. I like how famitsu reviews games with 4 reviewers.

A few games sites are getting away from only using 6-10 on the scale. Jim Sterling (yes, yes, I know) was very good at drubbing a game and giving it a low score if he felt it deserved it. His review of Arkham Origins is harsh in my opinion, but he does explain why he gave it the score he did.

Rum Rapture wrote:

I think I agree - though did you mean subjective, not objective?

What I meant more with my last point was how a reviewer will assign a seemingly arbitrary score based on what they thought the game was worth. Considering a game's price will vary across territories and over time I just don't see it as remotely telling of what the game is like. A retail game might drop in price almost immediately and a downloadable title might face a sale whereby it costs tuppence.

You might like the reviews on gamecritics.com where they completely hide the score & also tell you how long they played the game for before coming to their conclusion.

0 faults, right?

I expect user reviews to be idiotic, though. That's why they don't do it for a living!

Why the fuck are dinosaurs all extinct? I'm living in a world full of chickens and pigeons and shit when there used to be Diplodocus stomping up and down the Savannah? They were so big. Their bones are bigger than fucking anything and they settled around in packs? Hot damn! Imagine if Attenborough were patting a stegosaurus or some such shit on Sunday night BBC2.

Fucking games consoles are turning into PCs  the memory requirements and install times and shit on PS3 games are rididdykongs. If I wanted to muck about with all that, I'd buy a pocket protector and sell all my condoms and get a gaming pc. I wanna stick a disc in the c shot, fiddle a pad and shoot some mens. Jeez.

Fucking sissy crisps, jibber jabbering on about calorie and fat and shit. Shut up! I know crisps are bad for me, but they taste good. That's why I just have them occasionally. Don't patronize me and tell me some rice cake bollocks it's gonna replace monster munch. It ain't. I know how to peace myself. And if don't, I'll get fat and die young. Darwin.

Spurs' defence. They're like supply teachers; they've got no marking. Sometimes I just wish I was born a Manc, or a soulless glory chaser who can just support any fucking team and pretend the Victoria been something.

Buskalilly wrote:

If I wanted to muck about with all that, I'd buy a pocket protector and sell all my condoms and get a gaming pc. I wanna stick a disc in the c shot, fiddle a pad and shoot some mens.

Hey man, come on, nowt wrong with PC gaming. I play with a gamepad and I've probably made up the costs in buying my gaming laptop in savings from the games I bought. It's mostly install and play these days too.

It's just the hassle I dislike. With a book or a film, I get it home from the shop and I'm enjoying it but with games nowadays I'm waiting up to an hour or two before I'm enjoying the product I just bought.

With Buska on all those points (apart from being unable to care less about Spurs), especially the game installing one. Hooray for Nintendo, then, with its hassle-free "put game in, play game" system. Apart from when it requires a system update. And then they usually have massively lengthy loading pauses.

On second thoughts, yes, all gaming is getting more hasslesome.

Monster Energy Drink Cans
Yes, I know, they're terrible for me and their addictive and eventually you get to the point where the caffeine isn't really helping it's just relieving the cravings but when you lead the idiotic lifestyle I lead around a shift based job, there are mornings when you just need an energy drink. My problem is with the unreasonably thin, weak cans which bust open at the slightest knock and send a jet of high pressure fizzy drink squirting out like a super soaker.