Originally Posted by specofdust Tbh, I havn't played it but I disagree with the 10/10 score. I've never been a fan of out of 10 scores, rather I think percentages allow much more leeway. A 10/10 score says "This game is as good as it gets, nothing can be better". Unless you're re-evaluating every previous review done with each new review, then that system doesn't work.
As Joe has already mentioned, we've chosen to score out of 10 to keep things simple. There's nothing worse than making something more complicated than it needs to be.
The same could be said for hardware too - should we score those out of 100 too? In my eyes, it is completely pointless to overcomplicate things - what is the difference between 81% and 82%? 10/10 does not signify perfection, but if you never give a score of 10, you may as well just score out of 9.
Quote:
IMO the highest a game should ever get is 99%, as nothing is truly perfect. Despite how hysterical we might get over it at the time.
This proves the point I made above - if you're never going to give 100, you're scoring out of 99.
Again, 10/10 is by no means perfect (whether it concerns hardware or games), it's a score that signifies something that should be at the top of anyone's shortlist. In the case of this particular review, Joe didn't shy away from any of the flaws but when you're sitting there thinking of reasons to NOT give something a 10, it's hard to shy away from it. I certainly sat thinking what could possibly force this down to a 9, but there's simply nothing.
Thankyou DougEdey....after CardJoe went to such lenghts not to give away the story, it's great to have someone throwing bits at us without bothering with spoiler tags (fixed - Tim)
Tim, I see what you're saying, but with a 100% system, you are scoring out of 100%. You compare every aspect of a game to, what you imagine as, perfection. Comparing real games to the "god" game, if you get what I mean. It means that no game should ever reach 100% because no game is perfect, but it doesn't mean you should artificially limit yourself to 99%, simply that no game could ever reach 100%. If you're marking out of 9 then no game should reach 9, out of 5, then no game should reach 5.
All imo of course, I see why you guys are doing what you're doing, I'm just not that fond of perfect scores.
Had a copy in my hand in Game twenty minutes ago. Didn't buy it on the basis of fears that it might not work, work for a while then not work, work until next year then not work, or work until SecureRom go bust, then not work, or possibly just crash halfway through.
nr.1 its addictive and you gonna play it for a long time...
nr.2 its not System Shock 3...
nr.3 no Co-op mode...
now... for why you should play it...
nr.1 darkness is used far better than in other games (read: its not just abused to make you get lost like in doom3)....
nr2. the story (cant say much about it without giving a spoiler... but it rocks)
nr3. eyecandy (who doesnt like that?)...
nr4. its not boring non stop shooting
nr5. violent (like a shooter has to be, but without going over the top or under the minimum)...
nr6. you still not playing it? wtf....
bioshock isn't the only game that uses securom firstly, i know so many other games that do (CnC3 for eg ?) and they all have the same problem
I also don't think securom is really a rootkit, its not hiding itself, you can find it
The only thing is, its a bit hard to delete it, however, securom only runs when its called, its not a process that's running 24/7
I think calling it a "rootkit" is going a bit far tbh, rootkits are far far far more sinister, we would be lucky if rootkits were as easy to find as securom
I finished this Sunday at 4am and got to say its amazing and fun. This is one of those rare single player games that I want to play through again. THe only games I can remeber ever playing through to the end more than once are
Midnight Resistance on Amiga 500+
Streets of Rage 2 on Sega Megadrive
Gears of War on 360
I love this game and the graphics, story and the sound effects are perfect and set the atmosphere. If you have a 360 or a powerful PC then get it. If you dont then get a 360 or upgrade your PC because this is a great game.
Hmmm, 10 minutes into the demo was as far as I got before getting bored, I'm not impressed at all.
I just couldn't get excited about running around in a few dark rooms bashing in the skulls of people on flames.
Is it really worth me playing on or is just more of the same?
I didn't play the game yet, but it could be it's just not your genre of games.
Also I think you over-simplified the game, as I can say all sports game are boring as all you do is trow a ball in a net, which in reality it's more complex then that, and it differs between those sports games.
Originally Posted by yodasarmpit I'll give it another go, as I didn't really bother after the first ten minutes.
I just thought, ohh god, not another run around in the dark type game.
Don't worry, it's not Doom 3 - this one actually has a story! :)
Originally Posted by CardJoe How dare you compare BioShock to that steaming pile of monkey defecation?! Doom 3 was pretty awful, by which I mean it was pretty and it was awful.
Doom3 was rather lacking in a story, but for a run and gun it wasn't really that bad ;)
Originally Posted by completemadness Doom3 was rather lacking in a story, but for a run and gun it wasn't really that bad ;)
At first, no. After the tenth level with identical objectives, level design and enemy sets it got tedious. After I got to the caves and STILL nothing changed then I put on God mode and blitzed through to the cyber demon. Even that and Hell were similar an underwhelming.
Quake 4? Was...ok. Better than Doom, but still very similar and samey.
Quake 4? Was...ok. Better than Doom, but still very similar and samey.
oh yea no doubt, the copy and paste of the 3 tower levels pissed me off no end to the point that i actually quit playing it, i only managed to finish it a couple weeks ago when i got bored and thought to play it again :D
however quake 4 still looks awesome, i was amazed when i looked it up on wikipedia and saw 2005 release date
the game is nearly 2 years old and it still looks fantastic
it also has a really great selection of weapons imo, the machine gun especially is probably one of my all time favourite weapons of any game
Originally Posted by yodasarmpit Hmmm, 10 minutes into the demo was as far as I got before getting bored, I'm not impressed at all.
I just couldn't get excited about running around in a few dark rooms bashing in the skulls of people on flames.
Is it really worth me playing on or is just more of the same?
10mins?? was the demo that long!!! or did I get the short version :)
Comments 226 to 250 of 256
ReplyThe same could be said for hardware too - should we score those out of 100 too? In my eyes, it is completely pointless to overcomplicate things - what is the difference between 81% and 82%? 10/10 does not signify perfection, but if you never give a score of 10, you may as well just score out of 9.
Again, 10/10 is by no means perfect (whether it concerns hardware or games), it's a score that signifies something that should be at the top of anyone's shortlist. In the case of this particular review, Joe didn't shy away from any of the flaws but when you're sitting there thinking of reasons to NOT give something a 10, it's hard to shy away from it. I certainly sat thinking what could possibly force this down to a 9, but there's simply nothing.
Tim, I see what you're saying, but with a 100% system, you are scoring out of 100%. You compare every aspect of a game to, what you imagine as, perfection. Comparing real games to the "god" game, if you get what I mean. It means that no game should ever reach 100% because no game is perfect, but it doesn't mean you should artificially limit yourself to 99%, simply that no game could ever reach 100%. If you're marking out of 9 then no game should reach 9, out of 5, then no game should reach 5.
All imo of course, I see why you guys are doing what you're doing, I'm just not that fond of perfect scores.
Thanks for this. WOW.
Phil
nr.1 its addictive and you gonna play it for a long time...
nr.2 its not System Shock 3...
nr.3 no Co-op mode...
now... for why you should play it...
nr.1 darkness is used far better than in other games (read: its not just abused to make you get lost like in doom3)....
nr2. the story (cant say much about it without giving a spoiler... but it rocks)
nr3. eyecandy (who doesnt like that?)...
nr4. its not boring non stop shooting
nr5. violent (like a shooter has to be, but without going over the top or under the minimum)...
nr6. you still not playing it? wtf....
http://games.slashdot.org/games/07/08/24/213256.shtml
I also don't think securom is really a rootkit, its not hiding itself, you can find it
The only thing is, its a bit hard to delete it, however, securom only runs when its called, its not a process that's running 24/7
I think calling it a "rootkit" is going a bit far tbh, rootkits are far far far more sinister, we would be lucky if rootkits were as easy to find as securom
Midnight Resistance on Amiga 500+
Streets of Rage 2 on Sega Megadrive
Gears of War on 360
I love this game and the graphics, story and the sound effects are perfect and set the atmosphere. If you have a 360 or a powerful PC then get it. If you dont then get a 360 or upgrade your PC because this is a great game.
I just couldn't get excited about running around in a few dark rooms bashing in the skulls of people on flames.
Is it really worth me playing on or is just more of the same?
Also I think you over-simplified the game, as I can say all sports game are boring as all you do is trow a ball in a net, which in reality it's more complex then that, and it differs between those sports games.
I just thought, ohh god, not another run around in the dark type game.
Don't worry, it's not Doom 3 - this one actually has a story! :)
How dare you compare BioShock to that steaming pile of monkey defecation?! Doom 3 was pretty awful, by which I mean it was pretty and it was awful.
quake 4 was much better though :p
At first, no. After the tenth level with identical objectives, level design and enemy sets it got tedious. After I got to the caves and STILL nothing changed then I put on God mode and blitzed through to the cyber demon. Even that and Hell were similar an underwhelming.
Quake 4? Was...ok. Better than Doom, but still very similar and samey.
Quake 4 multiplayer though? Excellent.
oh yea no doubt, the copy and paste of the 3 tower levels pissed me off no end to the point that i actually quit playing it, i only managed to finish it a couple weeks ago when i got bored and thought to play it again :D
however quake 4 still looks awesome, i was amazed when i looked it up on wikipedia and saw 2005 release date
the game is nearly 2 years old and it still looks fantastic
it also has a really great selection of weapons imo, the machine gun especially is probably one of my all time favourite weapons of any game
little bit off topic though :p
10mins?? was the demo that long!!! or did I get the short version :)
-
« Previous
-
1
-
...
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
-
11
-
Next »
Discuss in the forums