Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
Online
134 guest(s) and 0 member(s)
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
VideoGamesSuck.com :: View topic - Numerical itemized rating system for games....?
IMO, whenever reviewing a game, especially for the PC, one should split the game in categories.....
1...Graphics
2...Sound quality+use of sound
3....Storyline
4...Subjective appeal
5....Objective demerits...eg, bugs, poor controls etc.
So let's apply this to HL2 ep2.
1....8/10.....good graphics, an improvement over HL2, but still not next gen.
2...SQ....9/10....use of sound=8/10=8.5 average
3...okay, hardly terrible but hardly ground breaking or "major"....6/10
4....good but as parts of it annoyed me, 7/10.
5....hard to fault from my end, 9/10
This averages out to 7.7/10......so let's now compare it to Crysis.
1......10/10.....this figure merely implies it's the best{certainly at the time, but Stalker CS might have pipped it}.
2....SQ...8.5/10...UOS......6/10....nothing special=7.25.
3....okay, works okay, nothing special/original.....6.5/10
4....8/10, I enjoyed playing it, it was a good FPSer.
5....9/10, all good.....granted I'm judging it from today rather than release day.
Score=8.15.
Let's do one more, this time a hypothetical.
Let's rate Stalker SOC if I could have modified it so as to improve it.
1.....if indeed Clear Sky looks as good as the vids imply, we can simply upgrade to that and give it 10.......SOC=8.5.
2.....SQ was already good, so let's leave it at 9/10, UOS was also rather good so no compelling reason to change it....9/10=9/10 average.
3....arguably quite original in some regards, but could always have better RPG/interaction similar to Mass Effect, so let's upgrade it from 7.5-8.5 after doing so.
4....I actually haven't finished the game, but I've played quite a bit, and I'm enjoying the unique ambience and atmosphere even though it's basically just a FPSer, granted it's quite difficult at times......so from 8.5, let's assume our graphics and other upgrades have made quite a difference, so let's give it 9.5.
5...hmmm, I find the hit detection to be bogus at times and there's a bit of lag during my splash screens, so let's fix that and up it from 6.5-..9/10.
So we went from an original score of 8/10 to 9.2.
From my POV, a game that's been heavily optimized still only get's low 9's....so I guess I want more and more from all aspects of games before I can get up towards 9.75.
One of the reasons I've done this is because IMO, Suislide seems to heavily weight games based on enjoyment irrespective of all the other aspects of the game, IOW, if he likes it, he's not too concerned about mediocre graphics or quirks etc, whereas I believe the whole package needs to be at a high standard to rate well.
What do you think of this sort of system that includes numbers so we know where the final score gets it's weight from, and can minimize the subjective element?
Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 10:59 am
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
I kinda agree w/ u
the people who review games here are in no way objective, and they overlook mistakes when the game is good, and nitpick when the game sucks.
However, this actually seems to work out really well, and I really agree with their reviews. Detail is good, but at the end of the day, if the game sucks, it sucks
The outline you've proposed is generally good. However, I wouldn't use a scale of 1.0-9.0, instead use 1-2-3-4-5
Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 2:40 am
Pogma9
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 2522
puk wrote:
The outline you've proposed is generally good. However, I wouldn't use a scale of 1.0-9.0, instead use 1-2-3-4-5
How is that an advantage?
Also, take Deadspace, I'm finding it unplayable because I can't properly remap the controls....
Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 4:28 am
D
Troll
Joined: Sep 11, 2005
Posts: 172
This thread: 0/1... erm, nevermind. Thought this was YCS.
Anyway, guess you should ask suislide. My joke ratings like "WHAM! / The Beatles" get replaced with numerical values so I guess he's trying for some kind of unity in the scores.
Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 1:10 pm
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
Pogma9 wrote:
puk wrote:
The outline you've proposed is generally good. However, I wouldn't use a scale of 1.0-9.0, instead use 1-2-3-4-5
How is that an advantage?
Well if a game has a score of 6.5 vs 6.6, what's the difference? Or to look at it another way, could you tell if a game was a 6.5 as opposed to a 6.6?
If you only have 5 scores (or 5 stars, or A-B-C-D-F), it's much more intuitive what the score means.
Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 2:30 pm
M0nKeY
VGS Admin
Joined: Aug 13, 2003
Posts: 181
Location: New York
D wrote:
This thread: 0/1... erm, nevermind. Thought this was YCS.
Anyway, guess you should ask suislide. My joke ratings like "WHAM! / The Beatles" get replaced with numerical values so I guess he's trying for some kind of unity in the scores.
Really? Thats a lame edit suislide!
lulz at "WHAM!" out of a possible "Beatles".
_________________
Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 5:03 pm
Pogma9
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 2522
puk wrote:
The outline Well if a game has a score of 6.5 vs 6.6, what's the difference? Or to look at it another way, could you tell if a game was a 6.5 as opposed to a 6.6?
If you only have 5 scores (or 5 stars, or A-B-C-D-F), it's much more intuitive what the score means.
How do I rate a game I score 9.1/10......in your system, doesn't that have to be bumped to 5/5....?
Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:32 am
Suislide
VGS Admin
Joined: Aug 14, 2003
Posts: 509
M0nKeY wrote:
D wrote:
This thread: 0/1... erm, nevermind. Thought this was YCS.
Anyway, guess you should ask suislide. My joke ratings like "WHAM! / The Beatles" get replaced with numerical values so I guess he's trying for some kind of unity in the scores.
Really? Thats a lame edit suislide!
lulz at "WHAM!" out of a possible "Beatles".
Allright next time I'll just put the score afterwards!
Anyways, your scale is retarded. If a game is the funnest game in the world and had absolute crap graphics, it would get a poor score in your system which is absurd. Gameplay takes precedence over pretty much everything, when everything else comes together then its even better. Sound and story affect things more than graphics, because if a game is fun as hell but has shit voice acting and crap story obviously its not going to be as enjoyable as it could have been. Graphics are the least important
Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:46 am
M0nKeY
VGS Admin
Joined: Aug 13, 2003
Posts: 181
Location: New York
Pogma9 wrote:
Suislide seems to heavily weight games based on enjoyment irrespective of all the other aspects of the game
Well sometimes that's what makes it funny.
Pogma9 wrote:
What do you think of this sort of system that includes numbers so we know where the final score gets it's weight from, and can minimize the subjective element?
The style of the author is as important as the content. Some people will like a more weighted review like suislide while others like a more equalized approach.
Personally I appreciate both, as long as there is something interesting or funny going on.
Write a Review the way YOU want to. Eliminating subjectivity is impossible.
-----------------------------------
Suislide wrote:
Graphics are the least important
I agree, but some people don't. Maybe they see graphics as contributing to "immersion"
_________________
Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 3:31 am
Pogma9
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 2522
Suislide wrote:
Anyways, your scale is retarded. If a game is the funnest game in the world and had absolute crap graphics, it would get a poor score in your system which is absurd. Gameplay takes precedence over pretty much everything Graphics are the least important
I and many others don't agree, and as M0nKeY said, it adds to the immersion, in fact, poor graphics are the reason I generally don't play RPG's.
I dled Half Life 1 the other day{98c on Steam}, and even though they had enabled 1920x1200 in the video options, the game still looked like ass, however, many people are reasonably excited about the prospect of the upgrade via "Black Mesa".....me included.
Last edited by Pogma9 on Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:11 am, edited 1 time in total
Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 3:41 am
Pogma9
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 2522
M0nKeY wrote:
Personally I appreciate both, as long as there is something interesting or funny going on.
Write a Review the way YOU want to. Eliminating subjectivity is impossible.
Really, the who do you rely on for your game scores?
Consider that Suislide rated Deadspace significantly higher than Stalker SOC, yet I can't even/won't bother to play Deadspace thanks to the totally fucked controls......as such, my fun factor is zero, but if we overlook that type of shit and only rely on how much Suislide likes it, then we have a sizeable disparity between my scores and his.
I think Suislide rated it 9.5/10.....so let's compare it to my system{I have the game but haven't played it obviously}.
1.....graphics......8/10
2....sound......9/10
3....story....I don't think there is anything 10 worthy here, so give it 7.5
4....subjective appeal based on what little I bothered=8/10.
5....controls/bugs.....epic fail=1/10
=......6.7/10, obviously with a warning relating to the controls.
Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 4:38 am
M0nKeY
VGS Admin
Joined: Aug 13, 2003
Posts: 181
Location: New York
Pogma9 wrote:
Really, then who do you rely on for your game scores?
No one. I take every review with a grain of salt and I keep the personality of the person reviewing it in mind.
I don't play games very much at all anymore to be honest. I like roms and the last thing I played was the space quest box set. This year has been horrible for PC gaming.
_________________
Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:19 am
Pogma9
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 2522
M0nKeY wrote:
Pogma9 wrote:
Really, then who do you rely on for your game scores?
No one. I take every review with a grain of salt and I keep the personality of the person reviewing it in mind.
.
The irony about some of Suislides reviews is he rates them higher than Gamespot.....so there's gotta be a problem right there, LOL.
Thing is, I could've and probably should've bought FO3 instead of Deadspace, but without having someone to rely on regarding the poor controls, I took a "gamble".....I'd rather not gamble and use a more objective approach to reviewing games as I tend to buy quite a few.
Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:32 am
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
Pogma9 wrote:
How do I rate a game I score 9.1/10......in your system, doesn't that have to be bumped to 5/5....?
Yes, but that's the point. There aren't 100 different classifications of a game. 5 should suffice.
Suislide wrote:
Anyways, your scale is retarded. If a game is the funnest game in the world and had absolute crap graphics, it would get a poor score in your system which is absurd. Gameplay takes precedence over pretty much everything
Well his system isn't retarded, it just needs to be tweaked. But I totally agree with you. The fun factor is the most important part. Every score should be multiplied by 1 if it's fun, and 0 if it isn't =P
Pogma wrote:
Really, then who do you rely on for your game scores?
You know it's funny, I don't so much read the reviews to understand the games, as I do read the reviews to reaffirm my views of the game. That's what I hated about gamespot. I'd play a game that was complete ass, then go over to gamespot and they don't mention all the problems. After a few dozen times I start thinking that maybe there's something wrong with fagspot.
Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:17 pm
Pogma9
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 2522
puk wrote:
Yes, but that's the point. There aren't 100 different classifications of a game. 5 should suffice.
That's what I hated about gamespot. I'd play a game that was complete ass, then go over to gamespot and they don't mention all the problems. .
With your system, some of the categories would have to score a 5/5.....the whole point of 8.6/10 is to indicate that it's pretty good, but not great or ground breaking like HL1, Far Cry, Crysis.
As I said before, Gayspot are "okay" with very good games{usually}, my problem is they're not harsh enough with poor games, and in Suislides case, he's not harsh enough on games that I deem defective/unplayable.
The fact is, we're in the era of multi-platforms, as such, I think we need to be more precise wrt our reviews.
You also gotta remember, some of the people who read this forum are probably way more jaded than we are, and I suspect that's down to the slow down in meaningful progress on PC games and games in general.
You never know, the next gen consoles might be so well spec-ed that we no longer care about the differences in graphics, it'll be the story/gameplay/bugs that make all the diff.......but right now, low spec-ed consoles are compromising most games.
Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:37 pm
Suislide
VGS Admin
Joined: Aug 14, 2003
Posts: 509
Pogma9 wrote:
Suislide wrote:
Anyways, your scale is retarded. If a game is the funnest game in the world and had absolute crap graphics, it would get a poor score in your system which is absurd. Gameplay takes precedence over pretty much everything Graphics are the least important
I and many others don't agree, and as M0nKeY said, it adds to the immersion, in fact, poor graphics are the reason I generally don't play RPG's.
I dled Half Life 1 the other day{98c on Steam}, and even though they had enabled 1920x1200 in the video options, the game still looked like ass, however, many people are reasonably excited about the prospect of the upgrade via "Black Mesa".....me included.
Monkey doesn't agree with you
Half Life 1 is still fucking awesome, doesn't matter what it looks like.
Deus Ex has shit graphics and is extremely immersive
Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:48 am
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
Pogma9 wrote:
With your system, some of the categories would have to score a 5/5.....the whole point of 8.6/10 is to indicate that it's pretty good, but not great or ground breaking like HL1, Far Cry, Crysis.
I've addressed this before: Gamespot already scores on a 3 point scale.
3-games you should buy (gamespot scores it as 9.0-10.0)
2-games you should rent (gamespot scores it as 7.0-8.9)
1-games you should avoid at all costs (gamespot scores as a 6.0-6.9)
the whole lower spectrum is a joke. it hardly ever gets used.
I'm convinced you're not even listening to me. I firmly believe that having 100 different types of games (0.0-9.9) is excessive. I wouldn't mind compromising at say a score system of 1-10, but 1.0-9.9, come on!
Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:54 am
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
So I was doing shit all yesterday, and in a moment of rare clarity I realized that I strongly disagree with Pogma on this one
I really like how the reviewers each bring their own flavour of critique to the table each time they write a review. I don't think they should be restricted in how they write that review. And quite frankly, the score they give is a mere footnote. That's why I'm advocating a 5 point scale, or better yet, a thumbs up/down.
Pogma, your argument makes sense in writing, but at the end of the day, based on the pacing of the article, I can gauge how good or frustrating the game must really be.
What I'm trying to say is that the reviews here have a charm to them that gamespot's do not. This most likely has to do with the fact that the reviewer is free to express his views without fear of using a swear word here or there.
Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 8:18 am
Pogma9
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 2522
I like science and maths you like paints and brushes, lol.
The purpose of my more invasive method is due to the fact that we all value different aspects and for that matter, genre's,....so I'm trying to squeeze some objectivity into the review process.
This doesn't restrict anyone from waxing lyrical about a game they like, but it helps all of us to make a more objective judgement about the overall quality of the game....for ex, take Mass Effect, IMO, it's as weak as piss from a FPSer POV, but so strong in the other area's that I like it, but if someone was a hardcore FPSer, they'd have to wade thru my praise trying to discover whether or not the guns are any good.
Personally, I'm over the gratuitous ghetto talk, but at least you can say what you please, including the negatives.
Btw, as you've probably noticed, Gaymspot rate GTA4 on PC as 9/10 despite the monumental fuck up that it is.....of course, my no5 category would tear it apart and expose it for what it is.
Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 8:20 am
Pogma9
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 2522
[quote="Suislide]
Half Life 1 is still fucking awesome, doesn't matter what it looks like.
[/quote]
Odd, I stopped playing it after a few minutes cause the graphics sucked.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 2Goto page 1, 2Next
