What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Meet Jarice: Next star of Best Buy’s holiday campaign. view!
youtube.com/bestbuy0 - Employee Jarice Brodie shares his story, his excitement and his singing voice.
130 Comments
- navster15, on 11/02/2007, -7/+32This article is fan-*****-tastic. All I want from a review is a concise representation of what the game is about and whether or not I should buy it. I prefer something like GameSpy's 5-star review system. Sure, they give out more "perfect" reviews than other gaming sites, but at least they make clear(er) distinctions between games I should play and games I shouldn't play.
- EvanVolm, on 11/01/2007, -2/+22Reviews are always broken. They represent someones opinion of a game. And, as well all know, opinions vary greatly between one person to another.
- oldhick, on 11/01/2007, -1/+20Because I don't have the time to sit in a game store and try every single game out myself.
- positron, on 11/01/2007, -0/+18Some (smart) people don't like wasting their time and money buying a game only to realize 5 minutes in that it's a piece of *****.
- Tserk, on 11/02/2007, -1/+18"Writing about music is like dancing about architecture." -Frank Zappa.
- Cougaboy, on 11/01/2007, -2/+15I agree with most of the article, but his defense of Heavenly Sword and other short games is *****. The movie industry doesn't complain when a movie is 90 minutes long because that's the average length. If you walked into a movie theater and the movie you watched was only 30 minutes long, no matter how good, you'd be pissed. We pay attention to the length of games because they can vary so wildly. Heavenly Sword is noted by reviewers because it was exceedingly short. I would agree with him in his cellphone comparison if reviewers started their reviews with a "game fact sheet" that had things like length on it. Until then, I think he's just trying to defend a game that doesn't deserve defending.
- troymcdavis, on 11/01/2007, -1/+13One of the problems is that a static scale cannot reflect the progress we've made over the years. If Halo got a 9.0, and Halo 2 was better in at least some capacity and worse in none, then it should get a higher score. If Halo 3 was better in at least some capacity and worse in none than Halo 2, then it should get a higher score. Eventually you run out of room. I like the [Kill Anyone Who Owns This, Avoid, Mooch, Rent, Buy & Sell Back, Buy] scale. This doesn't allow for comparisons over time, but does the current system do that? Not really.
- mrfreeziexp, on 11/01/2007, -3/+15I think we should get rid of the numbers. People are relying too heavily on them and have overestimated their meaning. For instance, Gamespot said The Simpsons Game was good. Which one would you buy: a game that a "good" or a game that got a 7.1? Most likely you wouldn't get the 7.1 game, that's too low to be worth your money. But they're both the same. 7.1 is "good" on Gamespot's scale.
Us as readers(most of us) have quit reading the reviews and are relying only on the score, and unless the game gets an 8 we probably just pass over it. But then we're missing a lot of the "good" games! - Apreche, on 11/02/2007, -0/+11Angry Video Game Nerd, Zero Punctuation, and Penny Arcade all know how to do video game reviews the right way. It's the same way that Top Gear does automotive reviews. Learn from them.
- Easty, on 11/01/2007, -1/+12Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw is the only man who does it right.
- Xelseragoth, on 11/01/2007, -0/+10I think what he meant was to ignore the score, and read the review. Then decide for yourself based on the text, not the score.
- cannabinemsi, on 11/01/2007, -1/+10you didn't get it, right?
- danielsan1701, on 10/31/2007, -0/+9You do realize that even "good" or "bad" options is still a scale, right?
- danielsan1701, on 11/01/2007, -0/+9I agree with the last line of your comment.
- gllopc, on 11/01/2007, -0/+8At the end of the day - all I want to know is if the game is worth the money for the genre it's in. I'd like a YES, NO or MAYBE.
- Breachin, on 11/01/2007, -0/+8"The fundamental problem with game reviews is that they're analyzing products, not pieces of art. Or more clearly stated, art reviews decide if something is worth your time; game reviews decide is something is worth your money."
I don't see why this is a problem. I have bought plenty of games that were totally awful, making me wish I would have checked metacritic first because I had just wasted 60 bucks. I acknowledge that the review system isn't perfect, I know that a 10/10 game will not be the best game ever made, but I can be fairly certain that a 4/10 game (combined score) will be worth neither my time nor money. - LordAndrew, on 11/01/2007, -4/+12Oh, come on, thatguy0. A lot of people have been saying this for a while.
And I have to agree. This is why GameSpot switched to using .5 increments, rather that the weird .1 increments that sites like IGN use.
It's a step in the right direction, but they still have a way to go. - danielsan1701, on 11/01/2007, -0/+7I think it's OK if a US company reviewing US market games wants to use a US-centric scale. Hoser.
- modix, on 11/01/2007, -0/+7I agree with most of your points, but there is a large difference is money/hour in video games. This is why people can be concerned about length of games. I'm getting near 120 hours of Persona 3, which I paid $50 and am still enjoying thoroughly. That's $0.42 per hour. Obviously long RPGs aren't for everyone, but you have to admit there can be a huge range in game values. That is the only reason why it comes up.
Ico remains one of my favorite games to this day. It was pure art, and about 10 hours long or less. I wouldn't trade it for a game that lasted 300 hours. - GuyeNoir, on 11/01/2007, -1/+8Should have been under Cougaboy's comment:
There are few things more frustrating than a really fun game that ends too quickly. It's like when you go to a fancy restaurant where the food is amazing, but the portions are really small.
Length and replayability are two very important parts of any game. It may be an art form, but I still had to pay for it, and I want my money's worth. - Cyber_Akuma, on 11/03/2007, -0/+7I remember when X-Play (save your boos) talked about this. They basically said exactly what he said about the number system, obviously this isn't a direct quote, but they said something along the lines of:
5 means practically perfect, 4 means almost perfect but had a problem or two, 3 is good but not great, 2 is mediocre and 1 is terrible don't waste your time.
We only go out of 5 and don't use half points. Why do we use this? Because the point of these reviews is to give you overview of if we think a game is good or bad, why bother with a 2.45 vs a 2.75 out of 10? Both games obivously suck with scores like that, why does it matter if one sucks slightly less? - LiThiuMElectro, on 10/31/2007, -1/+7After browsing the gaming section on digg i saw "Call of Duty 4 gets 10/10 from the Official PlayStation Magazine" this article. I was sad to see that Reviewer sucks at review now COD4 might be an Excellent game but not a PERFECT game.
All the hyped game gets perfect notes or almost perfect these days like as if the review feel the paste of the community and go by the hype. Bioshock was review almost perfect so i bought the game... I was soon wondering if the Review played the same game... on the game play side it's really good innovative.. but all those ***** BUGS all around etc..
Indeed the "industry" of reviewing live by the hype of game and if peoples know the games they will fear to say out loud the flaw and will drive the costumer into a not so perfect reality. It's sad but true we can only trust our self :| - coyote1284, on 11/01/2007, -0/+6I once put a Pepsi One on top of a Coke Zero, then my refrigerator imploded.
- demiurgency, on 11/01/2007, -0/+6Zero Punctuation and PA are fantastic. I eagerly await each new installment. But neither is a good review source. Neither gives me any clearer idea whether this is a title I would want to buy, or even play.
- wild, on 11/01/2007, -2/+810 hours of gameplay is a better value than a ticket to a movie theater. Its $6 an hour and you keep the merchandise. So using movies as an argument against short games is failed logic.
Hell, even $10/hour is not horrid for entertainment when you break it out. (using your 6 hours for HS example.) You pay $60/hour for a ten minute massage. $20/hour for an NFL ticket. $300/hour for a lap dance, $75/hour for Bruce Springsteen concert. And NONE of those cases do you keep anything, or get to do it again anytime you want for no additional cost.
And you're bitching about $60 for a video game that takes a budget in the millions? Seriously? - Volcomite, on 11/01/2007, -6/+12Amazing read. I love that it captures both sides and is blatant honesty. No *****. Bravo Mark Wilson. Just another reason why I respect Kotaku.
- grumbel, on 11/01/2007, -0/+5Numbers are the only way to get a quick overview about what the reviewer thinks. They also happen to be a very exact way to express the opinion over a game. With text it often gets pretty mushy, since its often not clear how bad a 'bad framerate' really is, but if the game gets a 6.0 instead of a 8.0, then its pretty much crystal clear.
And beside, every single review is *always* flawed, thats why we have sites like metacritic and gamerankings, so you can get an overview about what lots of people think about a game. This is especially interesting since you can see how much opinions spread. A game that gets 5.0 from everybody is almost certainly trash, a game that goes from 3.0 up to 9.0 (see for example Operation Flashpoint: Elite) on the other side can be totally awesome or terrible boring, but that completly depends on the players expectations and has nothing to do with the game itself. - theXenocide, on 11/01/2007, -0/+5get rid of the numbers? yeah so then it'll be real easy to differentiate between scores when reviewers start giving ratings like acceptable, admirable, agreeable, commendable, excellent, exceptional, favorable, first-class, first-rate, gnarly, gratifying, great, honorable, marvelous, neato, nice, pleasing, positive, rad, reputable, satisfactory, super, superb, wonderful.
- BillPreston, on 11/01/2007, -2/+7I think it should be based on money.
The reviewer says: This game is worth (say) $32.
Makes more sense than a percentage scale where the top 5% isn't possible to hit and the bottom 50% is hardly ever used. - danielsan1701, on 10/31/2007, -0/+5I find it to be awesome and the only review site worth visiting.
Instant digg-metareview of Metacritic: 5/10 - inactive, on 11/06/2007, -0/+5Wow, I've been waiting to say this for years....your art sucks!
- Cougaboy, on 11/01/2007, -0/+5Over the time and cost that I had payed for and played World of Warcraft, I ended up paying about 15 cents per hour. I may feel like I was getting my money's worth, but how many people hate WoW on principle, specifically because it sucks up so much of a person's time?
I agree, money/hour is a stupid way to place value on a game. - NYCowboy, on 11/01/2007, -0/+4I like the way that Yahtzee in zero punctuation reviews the games. No Score just what he liked and disliked in a game. Then based on that you can make your on choice as to if you want to buy it or not.
- danielsan1701, on 10/31/2007, -1/+5Sure, but the net effect of reviews (a la Metacritic) can be very valuable.
- ifm1989, on 10/31/2007, -0/+4Hmmm. I don't see anything wrong with scoring out of 100, but personally, I think they should use a grading scale like at school.
An A through F is much easier to understand, as we all grew up with the system. When reviewers review a game, they typical score a game between 50 and 100, anyway. - bethlagarrison, on 11/01/2007, -2/+6"There are some of you out there who love the way writers and publishers handle video game reviews."
Really? - CLShortFuse, on 10/31/2007, -2/+6check the bottom of the article, he cites his sources. he's not one to steal. it's pure coincidence
- MaynardJK, on 11/01/2007, -0/+4A game that gets a 10 in graphics and a 5 in gameplay should get a lower score than one that gets a 5 in graphics and a 10 in gameplay.
Which would you rather have? A game that isn't all that pretty but is fun as hell, or a game that controls like ass but looks gorgeous?
IGN's system is far from perfect, but averaging all scores will only make it worse. - inactive, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3I always watch gametrailers.com reviews first. IGN, Gamespot, these would be secondary.
- guybrush3000, on 10/31/2007, -1/+4I started to feel turned off in the beginning of the article because the writer seemed to want to group together everyone who was fine with the current system as buffoons who like diet coke and can't see magic eye paintings. Which is just an awful way to kick off an essay with stupid generalizations.
However, after his little spaz out, the rest of the article is really good and he brings up some great points.
But dude should edit the beginning. Why alienate the people you're trying to communicate with in the first place? Ridiculous. - BlackJackJester, on 10/31/2007, -3/+6As much as I agree with this guy...I really don't think this article has a reason to exist. I mean, you're criticizing an arbitrary system with arbitrary judgment. Who's to say that a 10/10 isn't just "Man, that game was fun. I wish more games were as fun as this game"
- MaynardJK, on 11/09/2007, -0/+3There is no such thing as an objective review. If there were, we wouldn't be commenting in this thread.
- staticneuron, on 11/01/2007, -1/+4Thank you! I am a gamer that values my time so i enjoyed heavenly sword and had no complaints about it. Took me about 7 hours (maybe I suck) but the ride was fun and I would have been more upset at a drawn out affair instead of the streamlined experience I got. Action games have been short for as long as I can remember, platformers a little longer and shooters behind rpgs and MMO's at the top of life eating heiarchy. Even when gears of war clocked in for me about 7 hours I was still happy. I am not saying that all my games need to be short for me to enjoy it I just put a lower value on time and more on the actual experience.
- demiurgency, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2Of course they do. That's obvious.
The whole point of a video game review (of any kind of review) is that you find a reviewer/review site that more or less (80% of the time) is consistent with you own experiences and opinions. I, personally, like Gamespot's reviews. I find, most of the time, if they score a game 8.5 or higher, it's a game that I will enjoy once I'm playing it. Other people like IGN (I find they're not critical enough, but that's me). Lots of great games, like Grim Fandango, i would never even have investigated, if they hadn't gotten such high review scores from reviewers i trust.
Reviews should never be a substitute to forming your own experiences and opinions about a game. But they can be a useful tool for bringing titles you may not normally consider to your attention. - ludonut, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2Ratings aren't meant to say this game x is better than game y. Ratings should reflect a critics' opinion/experience and that's it. Sites like Escapist, Level Up blog and GameCritics treat games more like art.
- ZenMojo, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2Why people want less information about a game's quality, I have no idea. I like numbers, it lets me know what to spend my money on. When I was broke, I wouldn't buy a game with a rating under a 9 for full price. A 5 star system makes it impossible for me to tell the difference between an 8 and a 9, so I like the 10 point system. When Beyond Good and Evil and Prince of Persia: Two Thrones came out that one Christmas there were a dozen other games that came out at the same time. Beyond good and Evil and Prince of Persia were a strong 80-89% so I chose the 90%+ games instead. If they would have graded them all on a straight 4 star scale I would have kicked myself for buying the wrong game.
There are things difficult to express in mere words when you describe a game and what you personally like about it. What people can easily describe is their level of enjoyment taken from and the level of workmanship put into a game. These are the things I want to know. - modix, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2For movies and music it is a wonderful resource. There is a much longer tradition of criticism for those genres though, so its not as prone to score inflation and product boosting reviews and such.
- chad, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2I give your question 3 stars out of 5.
- thatguy_0, on 11/01/2007, -11/+13The article ripped off an editorial written by canada.com last week:
http://communities.canada.com/shareit/blogs/gamesn ... - theXenocide, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2Just cause reviews are gonna vary doesnt mean they arent useful. Opinions are the only thing youve got to work with when it comes to subjective things like games. So jst find a reviewer who has a similar taste as yours. You cant expect that every single game that you buy will blow your mind.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 130 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is