Latest gamesTM scores

[breaksmith]

Hmm, that's true, to an extent. But when it comes to getting into a new franchise, someone's going to want to pick up the best of the lot overall, and in that case such a relative analysis would be handy.

Also true.

[Cacophanus]

More precisely, if you hadn't played them you would be free to judge them by their own merits.

The extisence of better games does not make inferior games any worse, nor vice versa.

You have to play games in order to review them. This means ignoring three games in a series and then benchmarking the newer iterations, without prior knowledge of the older versions, does undermine the integrity of the appraisal. Many reviewers had never played an Armored Core game upon the release of Armored Core 2.

This was a good and a bad thing. Good because it brought a fresh pair of eyes to the franchise but bad because they didn't have the expertise to play the game. Armored Core 2 was aimed at fans of the original PSone games, after all the marketshare for Armored Core in Japan is huge.

Armored Core 2 got resounding good scores in the West but was slammed pretty consistently in Japan. It also helped that it was a near launch title.

Reviewers weren't used to the game mechanics and were under pressure to jump on the bandwagon of popular opinion (at the time at least). The following reviews were lacking in analytical content and scored stupidly high.

With a game like Katamari Damashii, anyone can review that. With Armored Core, Virtual On and a slew of others...you need an expert.

[PopeSmokesDope]

<cough> Mech <cough>

[breaksmith]

With Armored Core, Virtual On and a slew of others...you need an expert.

No you don't. You need someone willing to get dirty and put some time in, possibly someone with a little knowledge of the earlier games but to give it a fair apraisal, to judge where it sits in the sphere of games as a whole rather than just the subgenre, you must not have an expert.

I would not review a Virtua Fighter game for Edge because I would want quite different things from it than the average punter. Average Edge punter. Much as I think their Evo review missed the point, I don't feel that getting someone who is deeply involved would help. That would just provide the exact opposite problem.

[Alex W.]

I don't think you understand, Cacophanus. There's no need for someone to have actually played Armoured Core to review Armoured Core 2, unless they want to say "It improves on X but gets Y wrong". In fact, you might want to review in a way that says "This is like Gran Turismo, but" or indeed "Coming into the game with no concept of its style, it comes across as..." which might better reflect the state of mind of the reader when they go to get the game themselves. In these cases, you'd be better off being a Gran Turismo expert/ whatever (but still a very talented reviewer).

It'll certainly give a "fresher" appraisal. A good example would be Bill Bryson- he's not Stephen Hawking, but his recent popular science book was an incredible critical success, probably entirely because he's not an expert on astrophysics- like the readers.

[Cacophanus]

No you don't. You need someone willing to get dirty and put some time in, possibly someone with a little knowledge of the earlier games but to give it a fair apraisal, to judge where it sits in the sphere of games as a whole rather than just the subgenre, you must not have an expert.

I would not review a Virtua Fighter game for Edge because I would want quite different things from it than the average punter. Average Edge punter. Much as I think their Evo review missed the point, I don't feel that getting someone who is deeply involved would help. That would just provide the exact opposite problem.

That's an assumption that the expert in question would not be suitably objective. That's the point of contention here I feel.

I reviewed Nexus objectively, simply because I am so tired of hundreds of shit mecha games (of which many never get released outside of Japan). Christ, I own a Virtual On cabinet but that still doesn't stop from speaking the tru7h about Virtual On Marz!

[Alex W.]

That's an assumption that the expert in question would not be suitably objective. That's the point of contention here I feel.

I reviewed Nexus objectively, simply because I am so tired of hundreds of shit mecha games (of which many never get released outside of Japan). Christ, I own a Virtual On cabinet but that still doesn't stop from speaking the tru7h about Virtual On Marz!

It's impossible to be completely objective about anything- psychologically impossible for a human being. Hence the choice of a reviewer whose subjective viewpoint reflects that of the reader.

[breaksmith]

That's an assumption that the expert in question would not be suitably objective. That's the point of contention here I feel.

I reviewed Nexus objectively, simply because I am so tired of hundreds of shit mecha games (of which many never get released outside of Japan). Christ, I own a Virtual On cabinet but that still doesn't stop from speaking the tru7h about Virtual On Marz!

You're assumptions about your own objectivity are somewhat...subjective.

I own a Virtua Fighter cabinet. So what?

It's much easier to get a good reviewer to take a fresh look at a series than it is to get an expert to attempt objectivity. Then you get neither the genuine freshness of the newcommer nor the actual expertise of the expert, just a sort of messy squishy middle ground of nothingness.

[Alex W.]

Breaksmith: o/\o

[breaksmith]

o/\o

[Cacophanus]

You're assumptions about your own objectivity are somewhat...subjective.

I own a Virtua Fighter cabinet. So what?

It's much easier to get a good reviewer to take a fresh look at a series than it is to get an expert to attempt objectivity. Then you get neither the genuine freshness of the newcommer nor the actual expertise of the expert, just a sort of messy squishy middle ground of nothingness.

A good reviewer is one who is an expert. Otherwise you end up writing for The Guardian...

[Tetchy]

MEEOWWW....claws in kitten, claws in.

[CrispinG]

:0

It's happened again! Shut up! Shut up!

[Alex W.]

A good reviewer is one who is an expert. Otherwise you end up writing for The Guardian...

An expert reviewer certainly, someone with an incredibly vast vocabulary, an appropriate sense of humour, insightful viewpoint and a critical eye, but the idea that someone has to be an expert in the genre they're reviewing (and bear in mind that genres are somewhat nebulous constructs formed more by me-too publishers than anything else) is bizarre. Care to provide any evidence for such an argument?

EDIT- after all, when it comes to being objective and writing for non-experts., you have to try to ignore all that experise.

[Robo_1]

(especially after the Team Xbox morons jumping all over me for awarding a 7 to Ninja Gaiden )

Just for the record, I completely agree with a 7 score for NG. A superb game, ruined by a ridiculous positioning of save points, an incredibly mean spirited difficulty setting, and a camera which simply cannot keep up with the action.

Anyway, just so you know

[Juria]

:0

It's happened again! Shut up! Shut up!

I said this on about page 3

[Treble]

Just for the record, I completely agree with a 7 score for NG. A superb game, ruined by a ridiculous positioning of save points, an incredibly mean spirited difficulty setting, and a camera which simply cannot keep up with the action.

Anyway, just so you know

Yay! Ok, so I have to reject my own "scores suck...grumble...grumble..." argument to accept the compliment, but fuck it

[Alex W.]

I said this on about page 3

Can't people discuss in Discussion anymore?

[Rin]

I said this on about page 3

I was thinking it last year.

So I win.

[corky_hallway]

Doesn't this happen with EVERY magazine though?

I bet there isn't one games writer that hasn't had a score altered.

Pretty much, but none of them scarper straight into a scores thread in a forum regularly visited by the staff of the magazine (and a byline-free one at that), rush to admit repsonsibility for two of the reviews, and then openly admit that the staff had already forced him into obseletion when it came to his opinion on the score.

And as for this:

EDGE's editorial live in ivory towers with personal slaves undetaking their every whim. gamesTM's editorial work in harsh conditions and actually play games. So I am willing to cut them a little slack, especially considering they are such a new magazine (EDGE should know better).

Get some perspective, you bilious little shit. You actually have zero palapable idea of how much effort goes into that magazine, only for you to dismiss it with a self-important little wave, on a whim of whatever cancerously magnified little bee-in-a-jar crusade you've decided to dramatically roll your eyes about this time.

I'm pretty sure that the staff of GamesTM wouldn't agree with your statement, either, despite you, as you've plaintively confessed, having direct and vested ties with the magazine.

And for fuck's sake, it's Edge, not EDGE. Idiot.

[martTM]

Hello.

First (and undoubtedly, last) post for a long while - I doubt you'll see any of us on here trying to defend the mag from now on for reasons that I choose to keep my own, unless Strider comes on here to give his two cents and goes off on one (which I suspect he will later this evening). Nor will you see me coming on here to discuss what we did and did not tell Ollie to do when he did his reviews, as that's between me and him... until he posts it on here himself, of course.

What I can say is that the issue of deciding scores before even seeing games and then writing a review to match is proposterous and while me saying this will no doubt bypass the minds of the more cynical of you out there, I can't actually believe that anyone out there would think we'd do something like this. I've never worked on a mag that follows such practices and I don't intend to start now; it's a ridiculous idea that only serves to make the magazine look stupid (although many of you appear to be making us look crap very well anyway, without our input to stir your creative juices). Modification of scores can occur depending on how a review is written, admittedly - if the text reads like the game is average or even poor, but still has a high score, it may get adjusted afterwards once the whole team has read through the review and discussed it thoroughly. Without wanting to point fingers (again, something I will no doubt be accused of by folks here once I've gone), but I could hold up the Galleon review in EDGE as an example - to me, it doesn't read like a 7, because I certainly wouldn't use the term 'sorely flawed' in a review of a game that ultimately gets what I would consider to be a good score. But hey... that's just me.

One thing though - I totally disagree that in order to review certain types of games, you need an expert opinion. Certainly, you should have that of someone that at least enjoys and has experience of playing that particular genre, so they not only have something to reference the experience to but can also give valid reasons as to why something happens to be good or bad in that field. I, for example, wouldn't review a football game (or indeed, many sports titles) as they're not my 'bag' - however, line me up for a nice adventure or shoot-'em-up and I'll be more than happy to oblige. Still, I doubt we'll ever have to discuss the issue of having to employ experts to review particular games in the future - and you can quote me on that.

And I'm going now. Bye.

[Alex W.]

It's in block caps on the cover... but lovely jibe, I just "got" it when writing that.

Cacophanus: MOTH-OWNED

[hub2]

"Modification of scores can occur depending on how a review is written, admittedly - if the text reads like the game is average or even poor, but still has a high score, it may get adjusted afterwards once the whole team has read through the review and discussed it thoroughly. "

I don't understand this... surely, divorced from the text, this was the score the reviewer wished to give the game. How can you tell the score was inappropriate by reading a couple of hundred words?

Is this not just an extension of the petty bickering that goes on in every thread dicussing game scores on this and many other forums?

[Alex W.]

You're implying that the score can be considered isolated from the text. Surely not?

[Venice Cull]

I doubt we'll ever have to discuss the issue of having to employ experts to review particular games in the future - and you can quote me on that.

"I doubt we'll ever have to discuss the issue of having to employ experts to review particular games in the future"

martTM

[PopeSmokesDope]

[Kelthink]

I don't understand this... surely, divorced from the text, this was the score the reviewer wished to give the game. How can you tell the score was inappropriate by reading a couple of hundred words?

Surely the review's gotta remain consistent? The number at the end should be able to be a fairly decent reflection of what is written.

Makes sense to me, anyways.

[DonnieDarko]

Is there any way of me getting back the last 15 minutes of my life?

[PopeSmokesDope]

I said this on about page 3

yeah, but you slagged off Singstar, so you don't count.

[Alex W.]

Is there any way of me getting back the last 15 minutes of my life?