bit-gamer.net

When did 8/10 become a bad score?

Comments 51 to 73 of 73

Reply
Doctor Hades 17th February 2012, 21:28 Quote
And this is the site that gave the painfully mediocre Need for Speed: The Run 90% from memory... ; )

It's fair to say that every site and magazine is guilty of overrating games at some point. It's why I only trust certain sites such as EG, Edge and GameSpot and not IGN or particularly Bit-tech (sorry guys, your other PC related stuff is awesome though).
mute1 17th February 2012, 23:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Hades
It's fair to say that every site and magazine is guilty of overrating games at some point. It's why I only trust certain sites such as EG, Edge and GameSpot and not IGN or particularly Bit-tech (sorry guys, your other PC related stuff is awesome though).

What... the... hell...

I don't mind Eurogamer too much but Edge and Gamespot?!!
Bit-tech reviews at least tend to be based on, y'know, thought and reason...
SexyHyde 18th February 2012, 01:38 Quote
most people today are simple. they need simple reviews with lots of pictures and a 9 or 10 to buy so they can say its better than all the games with 8 and below. One of the critics i used to always use, i absolutely hated, they had such opposite views to me that i knew if they liked it, i would hate it and vice versa. what most people dont realise is critics are human, and their reviews are personal opinions expressed in a professional format. for me it takes time getting used to a reviewer so i can see how they approach things and view other things, so i know where our opinions match or dont.
Petrol head 18th February 2012, 02:24 Quote
[QUOTE=Xir]This is something that is, in my opinion, generally happening.

[LIST]
[*]In (online) Shopping (Try rewarding a seller 4/5 stars on Amazon...you're likely to get bribed/hatemail/sued etc.)
[*]In schooling (only the top 10-20% performers are interesting for employers/Uni's)
[*]Cars (less than 5 stars in NCAP? tsktsktsk)

Do not get me started on NCAP. If you want a truly worthless scoring system there it is. Crash a car 5 times and run over a dummy will tell you if a car is safe? They have only just started doing front impact at 40 when 5 star cars where killing people when traveling at 35

Back on subject. The detail and thought of different outlooks is why I came to Bit-tech. The score doesn't mean anything to me. I have very little time to game as a father of 4 so currently prefer pick up and play games like BF3. Just personal preference to where I am in my life.
SleepyMatt 18th February 2012, 02:44 Quote
RPS, while not primarily a review site, does scoreless reviews precisely to avoid fixation on a number, and thereby stimulates some great debates about the actual review. It's hard to believe no-one has mentioned them, or asked for a quote for the article...
dyzophoria 18th February 2012, 03:16 Quote
nice read, I can't believe people are arguing over scores nowadays though
Apocalypso 18th February 2012, 15:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SleepyMatt
RPS, while not primarily a review site, does scoreless reviews precisely to avoid fixation on a number, and thereby stimulates some great debates about the actual review. It's hard to believe no-one has mentioned them, or asked for a quote for the article...

I did mention them in my post earlier but not to worry.

There's no there site I've found that has a scoreless review system with the quality of writing that you find at RPS.
Krikkit 18th February 2012, 15:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrol head
Do not get me started on NCAP. If you want a truly worthless scoring system there it is. Crash a car 5 times and run over a dummy will tell you if a car is safe? They have only just started doing front impact at 40 when 5 star cars where killing people when traveling at 35

Why is it totally useless? It gives an indication of how well the vehicle stands up to accident impact, not just in a hand-wavy way, but a quantified measure, conducted in scientific fashion. Even if you don't like the scores (which do follow a rigid framework based on actual results rather than feelings), the identification of cars which have weaknesses in terms of crash safety is a laudable goal. Several manufacturers have used the data given to them by the NCAP testing to improve their vehicle's safety.

It doesn't indicate exactly how safe a car is out there in the real world, but it gives people an indication if a car has a score of 68 rather than 38.
Petrol head 18th February 2012, 17:39 Quote
Krikkit, there are 26 different crash ratings throughout the world. Why doesn't NCAP do them all and give us a real judgement against real world scenarios.
It's because our law means they do not have to. Please go and read how they test and think of all the accidents on the motorway. It is other countries tests that help with that not NCAP.

Still off topic though!
chemo 18th February 2012, 17:45 Quote
great article, i remember the days when i saw 4/10 and thought maybe not but then everything 6+ was always worthwhile. i disagree'd with alot of reviewers in my youth as i thought the mediocre games were ace :p
Xir 18th February 2012, 18:42 Quote
I don't doubt the crash-test of NCAP itself...it's the additional points that bug me.
If your car doesn't have a limiter-warning...no 5 stars. (Who uses that?)
No Isofix, no 5 Stars (even if the rear seats are unreachable with a baby seat)
No codriver belt-reminder (that's the Beep that indicates if there's a backback on the seat next to you) ;-) ...no 5 Stars
Indra EMC 18th February 2012, 23:39 Quote
when everything is about 9 or 10, 8 is a bad score, it's just a matter of perspective.
Tim S 19th February 2012, 22:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher N. Lew
Does anyone ever use the lower part of the scale, for example 4/10? Hardly ever. Reviewers - why have all those lower rankings if they aren't used?

I haven't read all of the thread, but I remember the crap we (collectively) got when we gave S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Clear Sky a 3/10 for being quite badly hampered by bugs - so hampered that you could play through 10 hours of the game before a glitch became apparent, with no way to fix that glitch without losing save games. I feel part of the problem is the fanboys who're blind to reality and in gaming that seems even more apparent than any other industry I've written about over the years.

Comment thread is fun to read for those interested! http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/pc/2008/09/12/stalker-clear-sky/1
Blazza181 19th February 2012, 23:39 Quote
I think a lot of websites are highly pressured by the main audience at the moment: the console, mainstream "hardcore" gamers, who play FPSes, racing games, et cetera. By giving popular games a low score, they are at risk of irritating that massive fan base.

When I take a look at the 40/40 games on Famitsu, I totally understand the list - a few Zelda's, Skyrim and others. However, looking at the 39ers shocked me. There is no way that MW3 and BLOPS are anywhere near the quality of Ocarina or the Wind Waker.

As a result, I tend to take recommendations from those I know - not the reviewers who are between a rock and a hard place.

Sent from my Orange San Francisco using Tapatalk
Whindog 20th February 2012, 01:14 Quote
COD MW3 what did other sites give that repeated garbage?

Sites will give scores to the games that make their audience happy. When there is a written component tho, its easy to see who knows there stuff and who just follow the marketing spill and go with the high score.
Krayzie_B.o.n.e. 20th February 2012, 02:09 Quote
8 outta 10 reviewers received cash or free gifts for their stupid reviews so therefore NO ONE cares about your review score.

2 minutes of You-Tube game play footage is all i need to know if a game is good or not so take your review section and stuff it up your ass!

I can't believe morons still by games depending on a PAID review.
[USRF]Obiwan 20th February 2012, 10:04 Quote
It's more like the distributors are doing 'pimp' work more shamelessly the last couple of years to sell their games. One of them is bribing reviewers to get high chart scores. They manage to literary create such a mass-hype that anyone wants it even if you don't play it, aka Appleism.

Some people lost all senses with reality and do such worshiping of particular 'items' that they even want to kill a reviewer for it. I would like to call them 'worship extremists' because that is what those people are. The outcome is a never ending flame-war, you just can't negotiate with extremist see, its their holy believe that what they think and say is the only truth. All other is irrelevant, ignored or waves away as not true and then you have created comment extremists.

To me it seems that since people can comment on reviews of any kind their influence is increased tenfold on the reviewer in a good way or a bad way. I would suggest to not let people comment on reviews at all, just read it, take it as it is or not and that's it. Nobody cares about your or my opinion anyway, and all is forgotten a few days later or when the next review is placed. All comments on this article will be forgotten next week. No one will go back a year later and read this article and its comments again or even comment on it.

So in the end typing a comment is a waste of your time. A few people agree with your comment or they don't and that's it. But for a moment you felt it was important to say something about it and then you move on with other things in your life and forget what you have written here.
uz1_l0v3r 20th February 2012, 13:52 Quote
8/10 became a bad score when games reviewers started handing out 10/10 scores to games that were merely 'very good'. I have played lots of games that were awarded 8/10, or the equivalent, and I found those games to be 'very good'.
bawjaws 20th February 2012, 21:36 Quote
Games getting scores that are skewed towards the top end of the scale is nothing new. It's been happening ever since the good old days of the ZX Spectrum (and probably even earlier). I remember Amiga Power railing against the concept that an "average" score should be 7/10, and attracting some controversy by awarding some exceptionally low scores. That was over 20 years ago :)
Niftyrat 21st February 2012, 14:13 Quote
Sorry but this is not just happening here, I used to lecture for a living and we were graded out of 5 in 4 categories and this was converted to a % and weighted based on student numbers. My target 96% (yes so a student who have gave 4 out of 5 was considered bad) if you had an off day and a student gave you a 3 you would be up in front of the boss.

So no surprise that games have gone the same way
pucpop 23rd February 2012, 04:22 Quote
7 out of 10 and upwards sounds good to me!
Poacher886 25th February 2012, 16:26 Quote
Its an interesting article and a valid point. Anything below 90% can be deemed as a less than great game!!.

As a PC/computer games player since there real begining in the 80's, i've seen the change in both the games availible and the way they are received.
Back in the 80's and 90's games were considered excellent with a score of 75% or more, and for a game to reach 90% or more it really had to be something both inovative and superb. However, in those days, games were inovative and different. I remember when 'Elite' came out, which was so far removed from other games it generaly was breathtaking..and rightly scored a 9/10....a feat that was rare for any game.

For me the whole PC game market and scoring, infact if anything the dimise of PC games being inovative came with the FPS. When FPS hit the shelves it was rightly "Like 'Elite' before it" considered an amazing new inovative game style...at the time, Military flight sims were the cream of gaming. WIth the advent of FPS, all things changed.

The first FPS games were rightly scored very high....it was something new, but then the very genre took over all gaming, and inovative new games generaly stopped as every devolper jumped on the bandwagon of making very simple forward/back/left/right- shoot games that were guaranteed to score 90%+ and sell big time, other games like highly complex simulators would now score lower marks purely because the did'nt involve running around and shooting people.

The bar was now set at 90% and was reached by all but the abosolutely worst FPS games, with all other genres having to accept lower scores for not being an FPS. Of course, such a simple game genre was easily ported to the emerging consoles, and the decline of the PC was born.

Now it seems, with so little room to move where marking is concerned, its all about the second number that dipicts a games greatness.e.g

First person shooter = 90% base rate. where 91% is good / 92% is very good / 93%+ is great.
Axly 28th February 2012, 09:43 Quote
Devaluation of numbers is human nature.. Unless you have a clear definition of what "84" really means, the scale will start slipping eventually.
Example: Ray Wiever has tested "Ultra Onslaught 2000" and found it to be a great game, score is set to 84%... A while later, the sequel "Ultra Onslaught 3000" emerges, and even if it's not as spectacular for it's time as the old one was, it's still better than the old game. The result is that the grade will be set a bit too high.

If there was a clear definition that 8/10 meant for example "one of the top games available right now" and 9/10 was "this game will be a bechmark for gaming experiences" (5 being: playable, good enough to kill off a few hours with but nothing you'll install again in a few years), that would make it easier to accept for even the fanboys to accept an 8. That in addition to several earlier comments that you perhaps need to separate gaming experience, story, bugginess etc.

personally I've stopped listening to game reviews, they all get 90% anyway...
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums