Latest gamesTM scores

[Chorlton]

I don't see the logic there. Every publication, mag or online, has their own criteria for scoring. Ours at NTSC is different to that at GamesTM's, just as theirs is different to Edge's, just as Edge's is different to OPSM's. Simple as.

I'm not going to argue about the finer details of each publications review policy, especially with the people responsible for them.

However, speaking as an avid reader of both, I do believe that if 2 publications both reviewing out of 10, with 10 being the highest score available, that is generally read by a similar target audience, and who use the same reviewer to review the same game and came out with 2 different review scores, I would ask the reviewer why, if I could. I genuinely believe I wouldn't be alone in this.

I also think Cacky would then tell us it was cause his score was altered, hence the inevitability of this thread.

[Sprite Machine]

*what* criteria for scoring? How can you have a criteria for giving a game a certain score? I don't understand.

In an "Offical Average = 7, Unofficial Average = 5" kinda way?

You know, like the difference between Edge and Official Playstation 2 magazine, or something.

(May not be the best example or explanation)

[metallicfrodo]

I also think Cacky would then tell us it was cause his score was altered, hence the inevitability of this thread.

The thing that has piqued peoples interest is that the allegation that it was supposedly never going to be allowed to get over an 8 whatever. (the same with the bally game which I can't spell) A discussion about fitting the score in with readership etc after seeing the review is something that I think people would have more readily accepted

[Treble]

Well, it's hardly for me to comment on that issue. All I can say is, the reviewers/editorial team, after debate (standard practice) decided that the review text Ollie wrote for NTSC-uk warranted a 9 score.

[breaksmith]

You don't alter your review to take into account your audience? Sorry? What bilge. Of course you do.

I'd fully expect NTSCUK to give a deep and intricate if dull game a higher score than GamesTM. Hell, I'd expect the fact it was Japanese alone to influence the score. It's an import games specialist read by those interested in and with a good understanding of their games.

On the counterpoint, a review in The Sun would be for a whole different subset of readers with different desires, expectations and knowledge.

A good reviewer understands what their audience expects (guidence? rock solid opinion? information?) and reacts accordingly. We can't be objective but we can at least give our audience what they're looking for, whatever that may be. Surely that's professionalism?

[metallicfrodo]

Well, it's hardly for me to comment on that issue. All I can say is, the reviewers/editorial team, after debate (standard practice) decided that the review text Ollie wrote for NTSC-uk warranted a 9 score.

So do the editorial team at NTSC decide the score based on the text submitted rather than the reviewer saying what score they would give it. That just sounds really strange?

[Sprite Machine]

I think it's a bit self-defeating to try to second-guess what the entirety of your audience is 'expecting', but I see your point all the same, breaky.

[The Liberal Elite]

so you're saying that you should be trying to sell a game to one particular audience becauyse you think they'll like it, and trying to deter another group of people from buying it because you think they won't like it?

[Venice Cull]

so you're saying that you should be trying to sell a game to one particular audience becauyse you think they'll like it, and trying to deter another group of people from buying it because you think they won't like it?

I would. I mean to a Sun reader 'Three colours Blue' would be the most tedious 'foreign muck' film imaginable, but to a Guardian reader it's a wonderful, moving and thoughful movie.

[Treble]

Edit: n/m

[The Liberal Elite]

I would. I mean to a Sun reader 'Three colours Blue' would be the most tedious 'foreign muck' film imaginable, but to a Guardian reader it's a wonderful, moving and thoughful movie.

But isn't that ever so slightly condescending? "No, don't bother this this, you're to STUPID to understand why it's good. Go and play that EA game instead"

[breaksmith]

But isn't that ever so slightly condescending? "No, don't bother this this, you're to STUPID to understand why it's good. Go and play that EA game instead"

No, it's apreciating what your audience is interested in.

[Venice Cull]

But isn't that ever so slightly condescending? "No, don't bother this this, you're to STUPID to understand why it's good. Go and play that EA game instead"

Perhaps I used a bad example by using Sun readers. A specific videogame mag caters to it's audience. If that audience is the semi-casual crowd they aren't going to enjoy the complex stat-based nature of big Robot games, whereas a crowd like NTSC are going to really enjoy that type of game.

If a score represents the enjoyment that the magazine's target reader is going to get from a game then it'll have to reflect their tastes accordingly.

[breaksmith]

To expand - that's why they bought The Sun and not The Guardian. That's why they read the Games TM or NTSC-UK or OPSM2 review. To get a review that they could understand and contextualise.

The readers have a picture of the average reader, same as the writers.

[UKBuckaroo]

Cacky you are as mad as a badger. A mad crazy robot mecha badger driven by a Japanese school girl with her own robot fist and cute bunny trading monster farm.

[Venice Cull]

To expand - NTSC readers are going to enjoy Nexus 10% more than GamesTM readers.

[Treble]

LOL

[Chorlton]

You don't alter your review to take into account your audience? Sorry? What bilge. Of course you do.

I'd fully expect NTSCUK to give a deep and intricate if dull game a higher score than GamesTM. Hell, I'd expect the fact it was Japanese alone to influence the score. It's an import games specialist read by those interested in and with a good understanding of their games.

On the counterpoint, a review in The Sun would be for a whole different subset of readers with different desires, expectations and knowledge.

A good reviewer understands what their audience expects (guidence? rock solid opinion? information?) and reacts accordingly. We can't be objective but we can at least give our audience what they're looking for, whatever that may be. Surely that's professionalism?

Are you saying that if NTSC review the US version of Sudeki, it will likely give it a lesser score because it originated in Blighty?

It may be naive, but I've always gone with the a good game is a good game is a good game.

And I'm not comparing the Sun to the Guardian, rather the Times to the Independant.

[The Liberal Elite]

To expand - that's why they bought The Sun and not The Guardian. That's why they read the Games TM or NTSC-UK or OPSM2 review. To get an review that they could understand and contextualise.

The readers have a picture of the average reader, same as the writers.

People buy the sun because they want the news given to them in a particular way.

I don't see what this has to do with their reviews, however. As far as I can see, their reviews usually tally up to similar reviews in the broadsheets, and they wouldn't go as far as to say, 'you'll think this is shit' if it's highbrow. Amelie - 'poncy french crap' - but given great reviews by everyone, for instance. The only way that they differ is in their delivery to the audience.

This is a world away from giving a game an entirely different score because you *think* your audience wouldn't like it.

[Aardvark]

Cacky you are as mad as a badger. A mad crazy robot mecha badger driven by a Japanese school girl with her own robot fist and cute bunny trading monster farm.

I'm wiping tears of laughter from my eyes. That's fucking brilliant.

[Taurus]

I would. I mean to a Sun reader 'Three colours Blue' would be the most tedious 'foreign muck' film imaginable, but to a Guardian reader it's a wonderful, moving and thoughful movie.

So should a film reviewer who enjoys this film, in a review it for The Sun, simply argue that it's a load of old foreign rubbish? Because what if there are Sun readers out there who might actually like it? I read The Sun occasionally. Should my tastes be excluded from their reviews because they might differ from the 'average' Sun reader (whatever that is)?

[Taurus]

No, it's apreciating what your audience is interested in.

But how do you do this? How do you know what your audience is interested in? How does your audience know what it's interested in? How do you know who or what your audience is?

[Rin]

But how do you do this? How do you know what your audience is interested in? How does your audience know what it's interested in? How do you know who or what your audience is?

Survey?

[SomeNaiveChump]

Survey.

*strokes beard*

[Comrade]

Or review games in a national magazine?

You sounded more bitter than dismissive.

But Cacky doesn't do that either - anymore! Ho ho!

Anyway, I assure you, I have no particular wish to be a games journo.

*World breaths sigh of relief*

[kerraig UK]

*strokes beard*

sweet

[Aardvark]

An equally good question to ask might be, if you don't review every game/film/book/whatever how do you decide which ones to review? Surely that involves making an educated guess about what your audience is likely to be interested in reading about.

[The Liberal Elite]

An equally good question to ask might be, if you don't review every game/film/book/whatever how do you decide which ones to review? Surely that involves making an educated guess about what your audience is likely to be interested in reading about.

Another good question to ask is if everyone knows what their audience wants to read, how come sales are falling?

[breaksmith]

So should a film reviewer who enjoys this film, in a review it for The Sun, simply argue that it's a load of old foreign rubbish? Because what if there are Sun readers out there who might actually like it? I read The Sun occasionally. Should my tastes be excluded from their reviews because they might differ from the 'average' Sun reader (whatever that is)?

Well they should certainly be sidelined.

I don't see that there's too much difference between a media source's political stance and it's stance on what makes good entertainment. Reviews are subjective things. I wouldn't say a game was badly made if it was well made but I would say it wasn't fun, or suitable, if I suspected my readers would think the same thing.

I'd never recommend a three-game-a-year sports fan get Disgaea. Doesn't stop it being a great game, nor does it make me a liar. I'm just playing matchmaker. That's what magazines do, surely?

[breaksmith]

I have no wish to "do a cacky" so I'll be keeping my opinions on sales to myself.

It doesn't change the basic idea of targeting your content at your readership though. I don't understand why you find this so hard to understand or appreciate. Surely you choose which media to read based on your ideas of what they represent? I'm just representing.